How to set a Lambo ablaze... brilliant people here
Discussion
How bloody stupid can you be?
That site if full of bad news !
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1072188_pagani-...
That site if full of bad news !
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1072188_pagani-...
So stupid it's barely believable. That the person trying to enforce the "no more than 1/4 tank of fuel" rule should decide that a far "safer" option was to wedge the throttle with a piece of wood?!
I can't quite see how having >1/4 tank of fuel would really do any harm anyway as the chances of the fuel in the tank catching fire during the show would be so tiny as to be insignificant, particularly when the "best alternative" was revving the crap out of it, unmanned.
Reminds me of a road in Bath, where the council decided to "slow traffic" by removing the centre line to create a "greater feeling of jeopardy". Now this is equally stupid because the interim objective is taking precedence over the final objective again. The final objective being "safer road" (aka less fire risk in the original story) and the interim objective was "slow traffic" (aka remove fuel). But in the pursuit of the interim objective, "slow traffic" (less fuel) the method "increase danger" (aka redline car by itself) completely defeats the final objective.
I think it's called "losing sight of the goal".
I can't quite see how having >1/4 tank of fuel would really do any harm anyway as the chances of the fuel in the tank catching fire during the show would be so tiny as to be insignificant, particularly when the "best alternative" was revving the crap out of it, unmanned.
Reminds me of a road in Bath, where the council decided to "slow traffic" by removing the centre line to create a "greater feeling of jeopardy". Now this is equally stupid because the interim objective is taking precedence over the final objective again. The final objective being "safer road" (aka less fire risk in the original story) and the interim objective was "slow traffic" (aka remove fuel). But in the pursuit of the interim objective, "slow traffic" (less fuel) the method "increase danger" (aka redline car by itself) completely defeats the final objective.
I think it's called "losing sight of the goal".
t lolmrmr96 said:
So stupid it's barely believable. That the person trying to enforce the "no more than 1/4 tank of fuel" rule should decide that a far "safer" option was to wedge the throttle with a piece of wood?!
Reading fail.Fire Marshall enforces 'no more that 1/4 tank' rule.
Display staff trying to admit the Lambo choose to 'burn off excess fuel via throttle wedging' trick.
The 1/4 tank rule has been in-force for as long as I can remember, and it's not to reduce the chance of the vehicles fuel from 'spontaneously' igniting, it's to minimise the amount of flammable liquid contained inside a public enclosed space, in case fire breaks out through other sources.
Edited by shakotan on Thursday 26th January 16:37
R1 Indy said:
jon- said:
how does someone that has that much money have such a low IQ...
I don't think it was the owner, it was the display staff who the owner stupidly trusted with his car!50 quid says that when you got home, you'd have less teeth present than you started your day off with...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff