It's a 1995 Saab 900 S (non-turbo, 5-speed) with 196,600 on the clock as of this morning. I paid $1,500 for it a year ago December 31 and I've put around 20,000 miles on it since.
I took this photo after I'd driven it down to Hershey PA from Vermont last year with a bad clutch. It made it down there and back with no issues whatsoever, but I had the clutch done a week later.
I've done automotive action photography out of the rear hatch. In fact, I photographed this Opel Manta that day:
Over the years, we have strived to make this a community forum, with a friendly feel. Sub-forums for every tiny little niche is something we've always avoided. Photography is photography, whether its cars or birds, to a certain extent, it shouldn't matter here.
I understand. I didn't mean it in an attempt to split anything up. I was just thinking it would cool to have a place for all the people who specialize in automotive photography to share their tips & tricks. No big deal. I'll just post up in here I guess.
Antrieb: That E34 is looking sick. Any plans for building the new motor?
Canon EOS 40D w/BG-E2 vertical grip
Canon EOS 20D w/BG-E3 vertical grip
Tokina AF 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AT-X DX
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8
Canon EF 70-200 f/4.0L
Canon 580 EX II
Alien Bee Studio Strobes w/ Cybersync Triggers + VII Powerpack
Antrieb: That E34 is looking sick. Any plans for building the new motor?
Yup, but not this time. Next winter I am putting the 3.0 heads on to raise the compression up to around 12:1. Then cams, cats, and intake and hopefully it will be over 300whp.
Either that or some kind of custom Eaton supercharger.
It's a 1995 Saab 900 S (non-turbo, 5-speed) with 196,600 on the clock as of this morning. I paid $1,500 for it a year ago December 31 and I've put around 20,000 miles on it since.
Cool angle on that shot. I need to find a cresting road like that near me.
Thanks!
I find 'em everywhere as a backup if I can't find a background that's pretty neutral. I don't shoot cars on grass at all, and being in Vermont, the backgrounds kind of start looking all the same with nothing but trees back there.
Every now and then I get lucky and find the ideal spot. This one was in downtown Albany, NY, believe it or not.
Hi DoctorIT!
I hear you're headed down under! And congrats on your impending nuptuals!
Every time I look at stuff, all I see is what I did wrong. I should've bounced a little light on the nose with a reflector. That would've really lit it up.
Every time I look at stuff, all I see is what I did wrong. I should've bounced a little light on the nose with a reflector. That would've really lit it up.
Dood! you're talking like a photog geek, what happened to the old Fitz?
But seriously, your shots are awesome - it helps that you know the cars like nobody's business, but you really have a natural eye for backgrounds and settings that make the cars look hot.
And thanks, we're psyched, for all sorts of reasons. Send our best to L and K, we miss you guys!
Aw poo, and I can't find another version of it. Basically, they (Top Gear) had an old toyota truck, crashed it into things, dropped things on it, parked it in a high tide area and the when the tide came it it broke it free from its retaining ropes and the car sunk to the bottom, set it on fire, and put it on top of a high-rise that was to be demolished then blew up the high rise, and after all that, without replacing any parts (though the mechanic had to do some work, but he was only allowed normal hand tools - wrenches, sockets, crowbar, hammer, screwdrivers), it worked (though, obviously it wasn't road worthy.
Car of Tomorrow???
So I keep reading about fans, teams and drivers complaining about NASCAR's "Car of Tomorrow". What's funny to me is that everyone seems to skip over the irony of the Car of Tomorrow name. Given the technology in these things wouldn't it be more accurate to call it the Car of 40 Years Ago???
BMW is building cars without throttle bodies where the amount of air coming into the engine is controlled by varying valve lift. Several car makers are building engines that use direct injection of fuel to cool the intake charge and allow higher compression ratios. Audi is winning prototype sports car races with a diesel engine.... And NASCAR comes up with a new chassis and new body work, slaps the same solid axle in the back and the same 2 valve push rod V8 in the front and decides to call it "The Car of Tomorrow"??? The things probably still use chain as a component of the rear suspension (IIRC Cup cars use link chain to limit the travel of the rear axle if the back end of the car completely unloads.)
I understand that NASCAR is all about the show and not about the technology but please don't kid yourselves by calling it the Car of Tomorrow.
Aw poo, and I can't find another version of it. Basically, they (Top Gear) had an old toyota truck, crashed it into things, dropped things on it, parked it in a high tide area and the when the tide came it it broke it free from its retaining ropes and the car sunk to the bottom, set it on fire, and put it on top of a high-rise that was to be demolished then blew up the high rise, and after all that, without replacing any parts (though the mechanic had to do some work, but he was only allowed normal hand tools - wrenches, sockets, crowbar, hammer, screwdrivers), it worked (though, obviously it wasn't road worthy.
Ahhh I member that one. Antrieb posted it awhile back i think.
I understand that NASCAR is all about the show and not about the technology but please don't kid yourselves by calling it the Car of Tomorrow.
I agree completely but I'll do you one better. How do they call these stock cars? Find me the production version of any of these "stock" cars that have carburetors, distributors and points, V8's, rear wheel drive, solid rear axels, etc. Heck some of the street versions are only available as 4-doors.
I understand that NASCAR is all about the show and not about the technology but please don't kid yourselves by calling it the Car of Tomorrow.
I think a good chunk of the reason for the car is driver safety and shaving costs to compete in Nextel. I don't think performance is high on the list. In fact, I understand they're only running one restrictor place race with the thing this year, because they're not sure how it will affect competitiveness on superspeedways.
...shaving costs to compete in Nextel. I don't think performance is high on the list...
NASCAR wants to and needs to bring costs under control. The problem is the way they're introducing the CoT cars is actually going to cost more money. Now everybody has to work on both the CoT cars and the older cars and try to keep both competitive. The big teams probably have enough personel to have one crew dedicated to working on and developing the CoT car while another crew is dedicated to the up keep of the older style car. The smaller teams probably don't have enough crew to do things like that.
They should have just finalized the design, published every single spec about the car and then made sure all the teams got the new cars at the same time. Then say 'alright no CoT cars for 2007, everybody runs CoT for every race in '08.' Also, if there's not already one in place, they would need a rule limiting the amount of on track testing time everyone gets. Hell if they really want tight competition for next year, allocate on track testing time by inverse order of point standing. Guys at the bottom of the points get the most on track testing time, guys at the top of the point standings get very little track time.
A fan told me NASCAR's worried the new car might lead to no passing on the fast ovals, which explains the staggered introduction. They're being cautious.
I assume the lower costs will be for next year and onwards. Although if you ask me, trying to contain costs in racing is like asking a kid not to eat candy. Ain't gonna happen, there are always ways for richer teams to outspend poorer teams.
Although if you ask me, trying to contain costs in racing is like asking a kid not to eat candy. Ain't gonna happen, there are always ways for richer teams to outspend poorer teams.
But from what I've been reading NASCAR was getting way out of hand. I didn't realize that some of the big budget teams were running short track specific cars, intermediate track cars and super speedway cars. I've now gotten the impression that some teams have chassis that are dedicated to the extreme tracks like Michigan, Bristol and the road races. That's just plain stupid. Part of the point of racing on the different types of tracks is so that the good teams that can run well at any facility will rise to the top. The way things are now a good team that can adapt their equipment to different conditions can still get crushed by a big budget team that can afford to have a ringer car available for every race. Sounds like NASCAR has been asleep at the switch for a long time and now they're in a panic to get things under control. They may not be able to completely level the playing field but at least they can try to get things within reason.
So I keep reading about fans, teams and drivers complaining about NASCAR's "Car of Tomorrow". What's funny to me is that everyone seems to skip over the irony of the Car of Tomorrow name. Given the technology in these things wouldn't it be more accurate to call it the Car of 40 Years Ago???
It's called the Car of Tomorrow because it is saying that in the future with super high powered cars we need to be more concerned with safety, and this car brings that future to now. The thing is, IMHO people don't go to races to watch cars go slower than they did last year, and on top of that ask any driver, things that make things "safer" but also make them more equal (like restrictor plates) actually make things more dangerous for the drivers. From the fan point of view, yeah cars doing 220mph would be dangerous for fans, but when you go to a race you cheat your way as close as you can to the fence and it's not because you think it's safe but because quite frankly you don't care you want to have fun and are willing to take the risk.
And there's no such thing as a poor team in NASCAR. Even the one car teams get enough money from that one sponsor to cover their costs. The benefit of having a multi-car team is - you can share parts/tires with each other more easily, you can share thoughts and advice with each other more easily, and you more easily find drafting partners.
And there's no such thing as a poor team in NASCAR. Even the one car teams get enough money from that one sponsor to cover their costs. The benefit of having a multi-car team is - you can share parts/tires with each other more easily, you can share thoughts and advice with each other more easily, and you more easily find drafting partners.
Just a few questions I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I honestly don't know the answers:
Any idea on the number of multi-car teams vs. single car teams?
Do some of the lower budget teams try to get by with one chassis while a bigger budget team would have a short track chassis and a super speedway chassis?
Does NASCAR have rules about how, where and when a team can do on track testing?
Has anyone ever done an estimate of what the per car budgets are and what the range of budgets from the front to the back of the field is like?
Comments
btw ..how cool is this thing, 400 hp ?
.
It's a 1995 Saab 900 S (non-turbo, 5-speed) with 196,600 on the clock as of this morning. I paid $1,500 for it a year ago December 31 and I've put around 20,000 miles on it since.
I took this photo after I'd driven it down to Hershey PA from Vermont last year with a bad clutch. It made it down there and back with no issues whatsoever, but I had the clutch done a week later.
I've done automotive action photography out of the rear hatch. In fact, I photographed this Opel Manta that day:
It currently has a 3.0L V8 but it is at the end of its life.
http://zwilliams.smugmug.com/
Antrieb: That E34 is looking sick. Any plans for building the new motor?
Canon EOS 20D w/BG-E3 vertical grip
Tokina AF 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AT-X DX
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8
Canon EF 70-200 f/4.0L
Canon 580 EX II
Alien Bee Studio Strobes w/ Cybersync Triggers + VII Powerpack
Either that or some kind of custom Eaton supercharger.
You on bf.c?
http://zwilliams.smugmug.com/
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Nice shots!
A Citroen with an LS1... I'm pretty sure thats one of the signs of the apocalypse.
You clown, how the hell are you!?!!
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
http://zwilliams.smugmug.com/
Thanks!
I find 'em everywhere as a backup if I can't find a background that's pretty neutral. I don't shoot cars on grass at all, and being in Vermont, the backgrounds kind of start looking all the same with nothing but trees back there.
Every now and then I get lucky and find the ideal spot. This one was in downtown Albany, NY, believe it or not.
Hi DoctorIT!
I hear you're headed down under! And congrats on your impending nuptuals!
Nice shot!
You're getting good!
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Thanks Waxy!
Hiya Cletus!
Thanks!
Every time I look at stuff, all I see is what I did wrong. I should've bounced a little light on the nose with a reflector. That would've really lit it up.
But seriously, your shots are awesome - it helps that you know the cars like nobody's business, but you really have a natural eye for backgrounds and settings that make the cars look hot.
And thanks, we're psyched, for all sorts of reasons.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
www.zxstudios.com
http://creativedragonstudios.smugmug.com
Aw poo, and I can't find another version of it. Basically, they (Top Gear) had an old toyota truck, crashed it into things, dropped things on it, parked it in a high tide area and the when the tide came it it broke it free from its retaining ropes and the car sunk to the bottom, set it on fire, and put it on top of a high-rise that was to be demolished then blew up the high rise, and after all that, without replacing any parts (though the mechanic had to do some work, but he was only allowed normal hand tools - wrenches, sockets, crowbar, hammer, screwdrivers), it worked (though, obviously it wasn't road worthy.
So I keep reading about fans, teams and drivers complaining about NASCAR's "Car of Tomorrow". What's funny to me is that everyone seems to skip over the irony of the Car of Tomorrow name. Given the technology in these things wouldn't it be more accurate to call it the Car of 40 Years Ago???
BMW is building cars without throttle bodies where the amount of air coming into the engine is controlled by varying valve lift. Several car makers are building engines that use direct injection of fuel to cool the intake charge and allow higher compression ratios. Audi is winning prototype sports car races with a diesel engine.... And NASCAR comes up with a new chassis and new body work, slaps the same solid axle in the back and the same 2 valve push rod V8 in the front and decides to call it "The Car of Tomorrow"??? The things probably still use chain as a component of the rear suspension (IIRC Cup cars use link chain to limit the travel of the rear axle if the back end of the car completely unloads.)
I understand that NASCAR is all about the show and not about the technology but please don't kid yourselves by calling it the Car of Tomorrow.
Ahhh I member that one. Antrieb posted it awhile back i think.
www.zxstudios.com
http://creativedragonstudios.smugmug.com
Car of Yesterday indeed.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
They should have just finalized the design, published every single spec about the car and then made sure all the teams got the new cars at the same time. Then say 'alright no CoT cars for 2007, everybody runs CoT for every race in '08.' Also, if there's not already one in place, they would need a rule limiting the amount of on track testing time everyone gets. Hell if they really want tight competition for next year, allocate on track testing time by inverse order of point standing. Guys at the bottom of the points get the most on track testing time, guys at the top of the point standings get very little track time.
I assume the lower costs will be for next year and onwards. Although if you ask me, trying to contain costs in racing is like asking a kid not to eat candy. Ain't gonna happen, there are always ways for richer teams to outspend poorer teams.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
But from what I've been reading NASCAR was getting way out of hand. I didn't realize that some of the big budget teams were running short track specific cars, intermediate track cars and super speedway cars. I've now gotten the impression that some teams have chassis that are dedicated to the extreme tracks like Michigan, Bristol and the road races. That's just plain stupid. Part of the point of racing on the different types of tracks is so that the good teams that can run well at any facility will rise to the top. The way things are now a good team that can adapt their equipment to different conditions can still get crushed by a big budget team that can afford to have a ringer car available for every race. Sounds like NASCAR has been asleep at the switch for a long time and now they're in a panic to get things under control. They may not be able to completely level the playing field but at least they can try to get things within reason.
It's called the Car of Tomorrow because it is saying that in the future with super high powered cars we need to be more concerned with safety, and this car brings that future to now. The thing is, IMHO people don't go to races to watch cars go slower than they did last year, and on top of that ask any driver, things that make things "safer" but also make them more equal (like restrictor plates) actually make things more dangerous for the drivers. From the fan point of view, yeah cars doing 220mph would be dangerous for fans, but when you go to a race you cheat your way as close as you can to the fence and it's not because you think it's safe but because quite frankly you don't care you want to have fun and are willing to take the risk.
And there's no such thing as a poor team in NASCAR. Even the one car teams get enough money from that one sponsor to cover their costs. The benefit of having a multi-car team is - you can share parts/tires with each other more easily, you can share thoughts and advice with each other more easily, and you more easily find drafting partners.
Just a few questions I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I honestly don't know the answers: