Did You See Anything Good Today? [Read First Post]

[Roo]

Saw this as I drove home yesterday, but I didn't have my camera, so I walked back up and fortunately it was still there. A Ferrari 575M.

 

[1X83Z]

Lambo Gallardo Spyder
Skyline GT-R
Maserati Spyder (With 90th Anniversary bodykit and wheels, but can't be 90th Ann. cos it's not blue)
Ferrari 360M Red (No pic)
Aston V8 Vantage Yellow with black wheels (No pic)

Loving the Gallardo vert. God I love that car. I have yet to see a convertible (explain this: I've seen two Murcielago Roadsters, but no soft-top Gallardos) but I love it as a coupe and it looks great in photos as a convertible.

I checked on the 90th Anniversary thing on WikiPedia, which provides the following completely inaccurate statement: "the Spyder version is the 90th Anniversary Edition, not GranSport." This statement highlights the flaws of WikiPedia for two reasons. One, there is a GranSport Spyder on display at the Lenox Mall in Atlanta, about four miles from where I sit (admittedly, when I saw it, I was surprised to learn about the existence of the GranSport Spyder). But mainly, WikiPedia is clearly flawed because right next to the statement that the Spyder is NOT called the GranSport, THERE IS A PICTURE OF WHAT IS IDENTIFIED AS A GRANSPORT SPYDER!!!

So no knowledge is shined on your sighting. By the way, Roo, great sighting and good on ya for going back and getting a picture! (lucky the car was still there!)

 

[Rue]

So no knowledge is shined on your sighting.

After doing a spot of Googling, it turns out it is indeed a Gransport Spyder, as it has the little badges on the flanks too...

 

[1X83Z]

Not a bad sighting. 👍 I believe the GranSport was originally intended to be a sharply-limited-production vehicle, but that went out a long time ago - if you believe original advertisements then between the photo you posted, the two I've seen, the one you saw, and the one on WikiPedia, we've seen three percent of every one manufactured. Still, I'm pretty sure final production figures will number under 2000.

 

[jammyozzy]

Nevermind. =\

 

[Famine]

Mother of god...

Don't just state the name of the car. Give us a picture at least - even if it's a crap one from a camera phone. If you can't show us the car, how can we believe that you saw it? And don't just replicate an image from Supercars.net or the vendor's web site: we want to see THE car that you saw.

Post #1. The first post in this thread.

 

[jammyozzy]

I don't believe I missed that.

 

[Slicks]

OK, finally pictures of the Z8 I've been talking about. I went out after work and retrieved my digital camera just to shoot it.
It appears to be at two locations on a regular basis, one by the airport, and one at a restaurant just off mainstreet (Can't really call it downtown in a town of 12,000).

Also, I got a picture of a Miata running around. This one's special, and picture-worthy, because it's got Ford 5.0 stuffed under the hood.

 

[1X83Z]

Mother of god...



Post #1. The first post in this thread.

I honestly don't believe this. Are people COMPLAINING or are you guys just being nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky like it seems? Because I enjoy HEARING - yes HEARING - about peoples' sightings, not just seeing them, and since the people who continue to bring this rule into account don't actually participate in this thread, I'm hoping you have more reason than just reiterating this rule for the sake of reiterating this rule.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Slicks - a Z8 in Victoria? Whatsit doing there? Pretty odd considering I never see one in a community of 360,000 - yeah, Surrey.

 

[Slicks]

Well, I'm not exactly in Victoria. I'm in Sidney (The first town after the ferries) and I imagine that the guy lives in North Saanich or Deep Cove. Deep Cove & Landsend specifically probably averages a higher real estate price than most of Vancouver or the mainland does. As such, it doesn't particularly surprise me to see the odd expensive car around. It's more the fact that it was a Z8 and not a Ferrari, or something of the sort. There are a fair share of nice cars in Victoria and where I am. Hell, I've spotted two different Ford GT's in Victoria.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Now its even more strange, two different Ford GTs.

Hopefully it wasn't driven by Gordon Campbell

But yeah, the Z8. If it's Deep Cove or North Saanich then it makes sense. Those guys there are stinkin' rich.

 

[1X83Z]

By the way, Slicks, nice sighting, and thanks for the pics!

 

[Sting]

TVR Sagaris is the only one worth mentioning, apart from 3 Subaru Imprezas

I DO have a pic of the Sagaris on my phone, but my cable is acting up.

 

[Famine]

I honestly don't believe this. Are people COMPLAINING or are you guys just being nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky like it seems? Because I enjoy HEARING - yes HEARING - about peoples' sightings, not just seeing them, and since the people who continue to bring this rule into account don't actually participate in this thread, I'm hoping you have more reason than just reiterating this rule for the sake of reiterating this rule.

That's nice. And my reason is... what to do with you again?

The thread starter, who is also a supermoderator, placed THAT condition on this thread. This can be held directly analogous to the site starter placing any of the rules in the AUP on this site. Posting in this thread is a tacit agreement to that rule - much as posting on this site is a tacit agreement to the AUP of this site.

While your contributions to this thread are unargueable (though the existence of that as a word isn't) it is not your thread, it is Giles', and he laid down the rules for it in his opening post. Take careful note of the very first paragraph:

The previous DYSAGT thread just asked for people to say what they'd seen. It led to some pretty outlandish claims, and, well, rather devalued the whole thing.

So, now, we have a new thread, and new rules:

* Please, only list cars that are interesting in some way. We don't want to see anything run-of-the-mill listed. In the previous thread, people announced having seen a BMW 328i, or a Nissan 240SX. These sorts of cars are not interesting, unless there is something specific about the car itself that makes it unusual, like seeing a new model on/before launch day, or a particularly good custom job. Cars worth less than $20,000 US when new will struggle to qualify as "interesting".
* Don't just state the name of the car. Give us a picture at least - even if it's a crap one from a camera phone. If you can't show us the car, how can we believe that you saw it? And don't just replicate an image from Supercars.net or the vendor's web site: we want to see THE car that you saw.
* Give us some context. Don't just post up a pic of a car and say that you saw it. It's much more interesting if you give us some context. Where/when/what you were doing when the sighting took place, for example.
* Dealerships and Manufacturer/Tuner sponsored car shows do not count. This means that a race meeting/track day/concourse show/owner's club meeting does count. However, everyday "traffic" sightings are more interesting.


Please feel free to use the Reputation system to display your approval or otherwise of someone's claim. And please try to resist the temptation to slow-chat.

It doesn't matter one iota what you enjoy - these are the rules for this thread. I enjoy seeing boobies, but the rules of this site say no pictures of boobies so, whether or not I enjoy boobies, the presence of them is against the rules and posts of boobies will be deleted.

When I return from hockey training I am going to remove every single post of a claimed sighting which does not also - or subsequently - have a picture of said sighting, under the clause Off-topic/Spam, though I will not be issuing any infractions or warnings for it. If this irks you, please bring it up with Duke, DA or Jordan.

 

[TheCracker]

Just seen a cracking pair of boobies:






Blue footed ones! 👍 👍 👍

Have i just violated the AUP - or merely posted off topic?

 

[Danny]

It's off topic and will no doubt attract people to post two map pictures of bristol, and blue/great tits.

Yeah I saw it...

 

[Duke]

I honestly don't believe this. Are people COMPLAINING or are you guys just being nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky like it seems? Because I enjoy HEARING - yes HEARING - about peoples' sightings, not just seeing them, and since the people who continue to bring this rule into account don't actually participate in this thread, I'm hoping you have more reason than just reiterating this rule for the sake of reiterating this rule.

No, we're not just reiterating the rule to see ourselves do it.

Frankly, that requirement is the only thing that keeps this thread worthwhile - the knowledge that you will be called upon to prove that you saw the car in question. Otherwise, it collapses into yet another "I saw/drove/own/race X supercar" thread which becomes pointless at best and annoying in the extreme.

I've made the occasional contribution in this thread without a picture - the Maybach, for one - but if called on it I would promptly withdraw the sighting. I stand behind what Famine said above, so if you were planning on taking it up with me, take it up with Jordan instead.

I think we've all had more than enough of people who claim to own cars they don't. No reason to open the season on seeing cars they actually haven't.

 

[Danny]

Not seen today, and not technically a car, but for sheer wow factor.

 

[1X83Z]

No, we're not just reiterating the rule to see ourselves do it.

Frankly, that requirement is the only thing that keeps this thread worthwhile - the knowledge that you will be called upon to prove that you saw the car in question. Otherwise, it collapses into yet another "I saw/drove/own/race X supercar" thread which becomes pointless at best and annoying in the extreme.

I've made the occasional contribution in this thread without a picture - the Maybach, for one - but if called on it I would promptly withdraw the sighting. I stand behind what Famine said above, so if you were planning on taking it up with me, take it up with Jordan instead.

I think we've all had more than enough of people who claim to own cars they don't. No reason to open the season on seeing cars they actually haven't.

So what you're both saying, in effect, is that no-one's complaining?

Why not leave it up to the thread's active participants to determine what should go on here? Famine is moderating for the sake of having something to do - the point of this thread is to have fun, and we're all having fun, so why does the fun need to be quashed by people who don't even participate in the thread?

 

[Duke]

So what you're both saying, in effect, is that no-one's complaining?

Why not leave it up to the thread's active participants to determine what should go on here? Famine is moderating for the sake of having something to do - the point of this thread is to have fun, and we're all having fun, so why does the fun need to be quashed by people who don't even participate in the thread?

No, he's not moderating for the sake of something to do. He's keeping the thread from devolving into the typical falsehood-fest any internet car-experience thread will turn into.

Did you completely fail to read my post?

 

[1X83Z]

No, he's not moderating for the sake of something to do. He's keeping the thread from devolving into the typical falsehood-fest any internet car-experience thread will turn into.

Did you completely fail to read my post?

Two major things here Duke:

1. We like it how it is. We like this thread, we like seeing and hearing about peoples' sightings, and we like discussing those sightings. I've gotten two private messages expressing support for this position, and I'm certain it goes deeper than that - this thread absolutely has NOT turned into a falsehood fest in over 60 pages, and you guys have no reason to believe it will.
2. We don't want to be told what to do by people not using this thread. You guys made the decision to make this thread "pictures only" without consulting the majority and in the beginning few pages of this thread you can see the majority's unfavorable viewpoint of that issue. The unfavorable view of that rule changed when it became clear it was not being enforced, and now that you guys are enforcing it for absolutely no reason, it's going to significantly limit this thread. These forums are about having a good time and since no one's good time is being limited by people making pictureless posts, and because some peoples' good times are being enriched, it should continue to be allowed.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful - but if you guys made this limit, it would be the most absurd decision ever made by a usually level-headed moderating staff.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Two major things here Duke:

1. We like it how it is.
2. We don't want to be told what to do by people not using this thread.

i know im blind but if ive read correctly you are the only one complaing not we

 

[Duke]

Two major things here Duke:

1. We like it how it is. We like this thread, we like seeing and hearing about peoples' sightings, and we like discussing those sightings. I've gotten two private messages expressing support for this position, and I'm certain it goes deeper than that - this thread absolutely has NOT turned into a falsehood fest in over 60 pages, and you guys have no reason to believe it will.

I'm sure you're certain it goes deeper. You're certain of a lot of things without necessarily having any proof to back them up, much like your claimed 0-60 times for my car, since obviously all the published numbers couldn't possibly be right. I'm equally certain that this is very likely to devolve into ludicrous claim-fest, since that is precisely why the previous version of it was closed! Perhaps you should look it up and refresh your memory.

I'm willing to believe there are a few people who will be unhappy if this rule is enforced. There always are. I also don't hear anybody complaining but you.

2. We don't want to be told what to do by people not using this thread. You guys made the decision to make this thread "pictures only" without consulting the majority and in the beginning few pages of this thread you can see the majority's unfavorable viewpoint of that issue. The unfavorable view of that rule changed when it became clear it was not being enforced, and now that you guys are enforcing it for absolutely no reason, it's going to significantly limit this thread. These forums are about having a good time and since no one's good time is being limited by people making pictureless posts, and because some peoples' good times are being enriched, it should continue to be allowed.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn if you don't want to be told what to do. The staff's job is to enforce the rules. Because of blatant lying in the last version of this thread, the new version included the rule that you should post a picture. Don't like it? Sorry. I don't like speed limits, either, but I don't tell the cop he can't give me a ticket for speeding.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful - but if you guys made this limit, it would be the most absurd decision ever made by a usually level-headed moderating staff.

Since when have you thought we were "usually level-headed"? That's news to me. Regardless - the rule was made in the first post, and it was made because the earlier version was directly ruined by ludicrous claims. Whether it's rigidly enforced with a zero-tolerance policy or not, that rule is what has kept this thread from the same fate.

It's really not open for further discussion.

 

[harrytuttle]

Just seen a cracking pair of boobies:


http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/2786/sabluefootedboobielw7.jpg

Blue footed ones! 👍 👍 👍

Have i just violated the AUP - or merely posted off topic?

+1 Funny
http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm600

Sorry. I geeked out there for a minute.


Anywhich, I finally got new stuff. It's actually been a lot over the last week or so, so I'll enjoy myself and do it in batches. Lots of rain these past few days, so I'm feeling Merc-y.

Okay, no more crap jokes. It's all Mercedes-Benz today:

C43 AMG - tried to outpace me on the highway, but he couldn't hack it. So after things slowed down I stole his soul through my camera.
C55 AMG
E55 AMG (~2000)
E63 AMG - Got caught again, but the owner was super-nice. He had an E55 just before, and while the E55 was all about torque (said it was like a Corvette), the E63 was tight and precise ("like a 911"). Don't think he's ever driven either a Corvette or 911, but I was appreciative for the insight all the same.
SL55 AMG - The wheels grabbed my attention and I thought it was a SL65. Oh well. AMG's an AMG.

 

[tabs]

Here's a better shot of the one I posted a while back.



Mostly cool, because I had no idea a GL-Class even existed.

Slow day. This post = meh.

 

[Sting]

The Sagaris I saw yesterday, finally got my phone cable to work.
(Numberplate edited for privacy)

 

[Danny]

Sweet Carbon Grey.

What font is that?

 

[TheCracker]

That Sagaris looks just pure evil in that dark grey/black 👍

 

[Sting]

Sweet Carbon Grey.

What font is that?

Font called 1975 when I used it, but I doubt thats the proper name for the font.

The owners parking coulda been better. I might go to that parking lot again one day, see if its there again and get more pics.