Griff was being serviced so I HAD to take the WIFES car!
Griff was being serviced so I HAD to take the WIFES car!
Author
Discussion

jellison

Original Poster:

12,803 posts

307 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
The Dounnut King is Back! The 5.5 being away getting Tweeked some more.

silly
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc !!!!!!!!!!! bow
nutsnuts
Apparently when you do MAN Sized Burnouts apparently the huge amount of smoke eventually self combusts!

Sounds like Bollox! to me.

Was apparently was rather impressive from the passenger seat! And the kids in the back loved it.

Car stank for days after when running the spogs to school!

Or the Longer version (above in there somewhere) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc

beer

angrys3owner

15,855 posts

259 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
I was the one in the passenger seat and all I'll say is when there's an explosion all around you and your not sure what it is - it's nice and reassuring to be in a Volvo! hehe

mackie1

8,169 posts

263 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
Bloody hell!

Was the car ok afterwards?

angrys3owner

15,855 posts

259 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
mackie1 said:
Was the car ok afterwards?


Yep, As Jon says smelt a little of tyre smoke, however that was the third burnout of the evening (needed to make sure the car would be up to the challenge) in a FWD, automatic Volvo so it's not a huge surprise.

We stopped a few minutes later on the way home and other than the tyres looking a little worse for wear car was fine. I've got a pic somewhere of one of the tyres might have to post it tonight.

jellison

Original Poster:

12,803 posts

307 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
It is chipped to 310bhp

hut49

3,544 posts

292 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
griff or volvo?

angrys3owner

15,855 posts

259 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
The Volvo (The Griff was 398BHP (from memory) when the engine was built.)

v8nrg

854 posts

273 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
yikes rofl

Balmoral Green

42,561 posts

278 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
So what actually ignited then, just the hot rubber surface of the tyres vapourising momentarily?

TT Tim

4,168 posts

277 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
Why?

angrys3owner

15,855 posts

259 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
Balmoral Green said:
So what actually ignited then, just the hot rubber surface of the tyres vapourising momentarily?


It looked from inside the car like the smoke itself caught fire and from the video in my opinion, wasn't the tyres or anything else that was obvious.

angrys3owner

15,855 posts

259 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
TT Tim said:
Why?


Why not? It amused everyone in the car and everyone in the huge crowd around and didn't hurt anyone?

lambochick

1,462 posts

248 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
I don't suppose you'll be showing that clip to any potential purchasers when the time comes to sell the Volvo?

topsparks

1,202 posts

277 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
No,I will take them on a 160 mph test ride untill they pay!

Rob-C

1,488 posts

279 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
I showed this clip to one of my fellow chemical engineers. We reckon that the bang/flash was a dust explosion; the tyre smoke being made up of tiny particles of rubber, rather than being a gas. There are plenty of sources of igintion in the engine bay, so once the smoke built up to an ingnitable mixture, something under the bonnet ignited it and...

... woof.

petrol_noggin

3,046 posts

250 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
Rob-C said:
I showed this clip to one of my fellow chemical engineers. We reckon that the bang/flash was a dust explosion; the tyre smoke being made up of tiny particles of rubber, rather than being a gas. There are plenty of sources of igintion in the engine bay, so once the smoke built up to an ingnitable mixture, something under the bonnet ignited it and...

... woof.



RSPCA are already on the case.

topsparks

1,202 posts

277 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
Rob-C said:
I showed this clip to one of my fellow chemical engineers. We reckon that the bang/flash was a dust explosion; the tyre smoke being made up of tiny particles of rubber, rather than being a gas. There are plenty of sources of igintion in the engine bay, so once the smoke built up to an ingnitable mixture, something under the bonnet ignited it and...

... woof.



The flash did seem to come from under the bonnet,me thinks a red hot turbo could be to blame!

BB-Q

1,697 posts

240 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
We spent ages on Turbobricks debating what had happened to it!

sultanbrown

5,740 posts

261 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
Rob-C said:
I showed this clip to one of my fellow chemical engineers. We reckon that the bang/flash was a dust explosion; the tyre smoke being made up of tiny particles of rubber, rather than being a gas. There are plenty of sources of igintion in the engine bay, so once the smoke built up to an ingnitable mixture, something under the bonnet ignited it and...

... woof.




Yep.
Rubber burns well, increase the surface area by grinding into itty little bits and the above happens.
Of course, if this was a young lad in a Nova you'd all be talking about what a tt he was.

PJR

2,616 posts

242 months

Thursday 12th October 2006
quotequote all
I was thinking that the tyres had worn down to the steel bands/cables that are inside. That would have created sparks easily enough. But from what I have read, it didn't wear down that far?
But sure, a red hot turbo/exhaust plus all the fumes and rubber particles could no doubt do it. Never seen it happen before mind!