15 ms·
When Trucks Fly
- shockeychap 3y ago"Monster truckers obsess over distinctions among types of dirt the way vintners obsess over terroir." Are the author and publication trying to sound as condescending and uppity as possible? Honestly, this reads like the kind of thing that "Frasier" mocked so perfectly about upscale sophisticates living in a bubble. I was never a big fan of monster truck rallies, but it's easy to understand what was so fun about them. Articles like this that deign to explain the finer points of monster truck rallies (while using esoteric references to wine sampling) for their audience of sophisticates tell me just how useless publications like the "The New Yorker" really are anymore.
- olivermarks 3y agoI gave up my subscription to the New Yorker years ago due in large part to this 'sophisticates' problem
- Johnny555 3y agoIt’s true though. I say this as someone whose family members used to compete in mud bog competitions (not quite the same as monster trucks, but in the same genre). They’d walk the track and chose tires and set weight balance based on the mud conditions.
- resolutebat 3y agoI'm genuinely confused by what you're outraged by here. The average New Yorker reader knows more about wines than monster trucks, so they're trying to put it in terms that will make sense to their readers. If anything, the article reads as the opposite of pretentious to me: it makes it clear that monster trucking isn't just brainless amusement for inbred yokels, but a sport where things like the exact composition of dirt is critically important.
- JimtheCoder 3y ago"but a sport where things like the exact composition of dirt is critically important." Let's not swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction either...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shockeychap 3y ago"isn't just brainless amusement for inbred yokels" The article never made reference to "inbred yokels". It didn't have to. It can couch its descriptions in the language of coastal elites who supposedly know more of wine and polo than they do of simple things like truck rallies. And while it's ostensibly explaining how "sophisticated" the sport is, the readers will fully understand the "isn't just brainless amusement for inbred yokels" part. I wouldn't characterize my response as one of outrage. But I do find it off-putting and pretentious.
- ethanbond 3y ago"It can couch its descriptions in the language of [its primary audience]." This is a weird critique.
- shockeychap 3y agoThat's fair to say, and I don't deny being a little hostile toward snobbery and pretension. I always have been. However, I also don't think [its primary audience] is quite right. I think [its primary audience's self image] is a little more correct.
- ethanbond 3y agoYes it's a total myth that more readers of The New Yorker would know "wine people care about soil" than know "monster truck people care about dirt."
- nosefurhairdo 3y agoThere is nothing condescending about that analogy. Debatable whether "terroir" is esoteric, but even without knowing about winemaking you can understand the point that the quality of dirt is of surprising significance to monster truck rallies. And an article which aims to spread cross-cultural appreciation for a fun, harmless event is not useless. What is useless is unconstructive negativity.
- shockeychap 3y agoI have to question how "surprising" the significance of dirt composition is. The characteristics of dirt and mud (and the tires themselves) will affect all aspects of how the truck behaves and handles. How is it surprising that one who enjoys the activity would be deeply invested in the very ground on which everything happens? If the article actually was trying to spread any kind of real appreciation for monster trucking or why they're so much fun, I would be all for it. However, it reads like some outsider describing observations of an untouched tribe in the jungles of South America. No matter how much they write of their interesting findings, they're not trying to convince any of us to give up modern life and join the tribe.
- Swizec 3y ago> I have to question how "surprising" the significance of dirt composition is It's surprising to people who have never thought about it before. So about 99.9% of the population. And if you disagree with that characterization of the average person ... how strongly do you feel about the difference between a 7-speed automatic and an 8-speed automatic car? Or the importance of wood grain orientation in your picnic table? Or the exact type of steel used in your cutlery? How about the difference between a cavendish and a manzano banana? These details affect "literally everything" about those items. Yet most of us never think about it because we already have enough other things to nerd out about.
- cowmoo728 3y agoSomeone who has never thought about off roading or 4x4s may be very surprised that the dirt matters so much because they have never thought about it. So it sounds like an important topic to address for the audience of the New Yorker.
- theideaofcoffee 3y agoI don’t understand what you’re considering as uppity as it was probably the only highbrow analogy in the entire piece, the rest being pretty accessible and readable. Also you’re evaluating a line from the ... New Yorker which you consider useless, may as well stick to Popular Science if you want just the facts and a little less literary exposition. This is the same tired critique that people on HN bandy about every time a New Yorker article is posted: “just get to the point!”. If they did it would just be a lot less fun to read.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- toast0 3y ago> Are the author and publication trying to sound as condescending and uppity as possible? It's the New Yorker. That's the whole purpose of the magazine.
- ern 3y agoThere are two separate themes linked to soil in the article: the use of dirt for the shows; and the use of soil education in agriculture, that led to agriculture shows, that, in turn led to sideshows, that led to monster truck shows. I thought it was quite clever that they were unconnected, and yet both linked to monster trucks. The pretentious tone seemed to gently mock the readers and the perceived elitist nature of the New Yorker, rather than the monster truck enthusiasts, so more like the show Frasier, rather than the self-awareness lacking titular character within the show.
- antonvs 3y ago> tell me just how useless publications like the "The New Yorker" really are anymore. Are you sure you’re familiar with what The New Yorker is? It’s not really a news magazine, or anything like that. Its own description says, “journalism, commentary, criticism, essays, fiction, satire, cartoons, and poetry.” But “journalism” here is not like what you get from traditional news sources. The New Yorker is to mainstream journalism what Wes Anderson is to action movies. You don’t really read The New Yorker to learn what’s actually happening in the world. That doesn’t make it “useless”, because that’s not its goal.
- spacecadet 3y agoMonster truck engineering, suspensions, dual drive trains. :drool: Where's the Monster Cybertruck with hub motors??? talk about unsprung mass!
- msandford 3y agoI always thought you wanted to minimize, not maximize, the unsprung mass. So putting giant hub motors on would kind of defeat the goal, no?
- michaelrpeskin 3y agoI remember watching an interview with a monster truck engineer and he said it was challenging suspension design because it was the only motor sport where the unsprung weight was greater than the suspended weight. It’s a while different approach.
- spacecadet 3y agoInteresting! The tires are very heavy! and they aim for many traditional motorsports goals, lightweight and fast...
- spacecadet 3y agoThats my joke, would love to see a vehicle of that design, I imagine its dangerous but funny? Would fit right into monster trucks.
- nimbius 3y agocasual reminder from an un-cool diesel engine mechanic, these trucks are exempt from most state, local and federal emissions regulation by definition. You can be exposed to not only Methanol and Diesel exhaust but particulate and aerosolized forms of the fuels as well. If there is a fire you can be exposed to soot wax and ash. if the venue is indoors, thats nearly five hours of exposure. some of the largest monster trucks are also the noisiest and can approach nearly 125 db. if you bring your kids you need to bring ear protection and teach them how to wear it. eye protection (if youre seated close) is also a pretty good idea. again, the regulations for a monster truck rally are near nonexistent. they are fun to attend though.
- bombcar 3y agoEar protection is hugely important here and at races. You need to get it and bring it and wear it.
- dmoy 3y agoAnd wear it properly. The cheap foam earplugs work very well, but they have to go surprisingly far up inside your ear, and be held in place for longer than you think while they expand.
- midoridensha 3y agoSounds like a respirator or gas mask is also important.
- bombcar 3y agoIt could be, but in general humans are pretty good at recovering from non continuous exposure to gasses and chemicals (except radiation). But hearing can be broken in an instant.
- midoridensha 3y agoMaybe, but I think it's better to avoid sitting in a closed space for hours with non-emissions-controlled engines running.
- hindsightbias 3y agoMeh, pretty ritzy and elitist compared to poor performers: World Famous Figure 8 Trailer Race - Last Ever https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_0pVCigebQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_0pVCigebQ
- chrstphrknwtn 3y agoThat's the dumbest thing I've seen in a while.
- hindsightbias 3y agoBack in the day they would use old school buses. Cathartic.
- mulmen 3y agoIs it? What's the ideal strategy? The pole truck gets stuck in traffic. There are several early opportunities to get ahead if you time your moves correctly. What are the rules? Do you get bonus/handicap for the length of your trailer?
- chrstphrknwtn 3y agoThe opportunity to devise an amazing strategy to compete and win an activity doesn't make the activity inherently good or bad. Something difficult can still be overwhelmingly stupid.
- skrebbel 3y agoI think you’re overthinking it.
- mulmen 3y agoI have trophies to prove it.
- skrebbel 3y agoYeah right? I’m blown away.
- sonofhans 3y agoWhen my son was about 5 I started taking him to monster truck shows. I don’t know why, exactly. He’s always loved cars and spectacle, I suppose. We went to about a dozen all told, driving yearly to Maple Leaf Monster Jam in Vancouver, BC. I always wondered, “Who goes to monster truck shows?” In my experience, it’s mostly that — guys taking their young kids. There were many young girls at the shows we attended, and some female drivers. They do _really well_ at fan service. All the drivers know their job is to give people a thrill, and that the trucks are ultimately disposable. It’s a lot more engaging than sitting and watching a couple hundred laps of F1 or stock cars.
- tialaramex 3y agoSurely the difference is that F1 is a sport, and Monster Trucks are entertainment ? Not better, just different. If you go to watch the Harlem Globetrotters you're getting a very different experience from a good NBA game, but that's not because one of them is doing it better, they set out to be different things. Or wrestling (the martial art) versus Professional wrestling (a theatrical performance). Like yeah, I guess it is more entertaining when an angry wrestler smashes a chair over the Owner's head, but they practised that over and over, they used a chosen chair. If he later "wins" the fight it was scripted, they decided on that outcome up front and maybe the "loser" got a Hollywood gig so he's being written out soon anyway. Whereas the guy who got Olympic wrestling gold was really fighting those other guys - under some strict rules it's true, but there was no script, if they were better they'd have beaten him and they'd have the medal.
- kubectl_h 3y ago> Surely the difference is that F1 is a sport, and Monster Trucks are entertainment ? Not better, just different. There is a middle ground, called super truck, which is (predictably, and perfectly) most popular in Australia that is about both spectacle and sport. It's an intensive race (requiring the shutdown of urban areas, like F1) but it also seems like pure uninhibited childish joy, ala monster truck. I would not be surprised if in 10 years it is a staple of childish fun in the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkiV59cdR3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkiV59cdR3M
- Blahah 3y agohttps://archive.is/DjPjo https://archive.is/DjPjo
- whartung 3y agoIf mechanical things interest you at all, go see a Monster Truck show. Go see these things move. Go pay for a full seat “that you’ll only need the edge” of. It’s pure mechanical spectacle, and, like most other mechanical things, recordings don’t do it justice. It’s just not the same. Hear them, see them, feel them, watch them move and fly. Will you go back? Become a lifelong fan? Unlikely, but your inner child will thank when you start giggling.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- xwdv 3y agoMonster trucks are the closest we’ll get to mechs in this world. Massive machines engineered for crazy acrobatics and piloted by fearless drivers. If Japanese were Americans there’d be more anime about futuristic monster trucks rigged with weapons engaging in spectacular vehicular battles.
- rokkitmensch 3y agoInsufferable East coast elite gawking discretely at the plebs, nice.