Watch This Ultra-Rare CLK-GTR Roadster Get Spanked Up a Country Road

[Danoff]

It's that half-assed argument that I resent because those who use it don't have any reasonable argument and only aim to disqualify statements.

...and another ad hominem ("half-assed"). Granted that's pretty light fare.

Your first post was obviously aimed at the "crying", "whiners" in this thread (note the gif). I find it humorous that you don't think it disqualifies your statement that it doesn't actually address what was said.

My "trolling" remarks were made toward you only in that you were the one who asked "Did someone say otherwise?"

Here's my definition of trolling:

make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

Your first trolling post was aimed at the "crying", "whiners" on the board. The second one was making it clear that you think I'm one of them. You've made 5 posts in this thread today, and all 5 of them resorted to personal attacks, most prominently, your opening line. This is why your posts were referred to as trolling.

 

[Liquid]

why do you care whether or not it is driven?

Because I like cars and seeing cars driven if I can't drive them myself.

It's hard to avoid the cliche but it's a shame to see something like that become a museum piece.

Rarity is one thing but at the very minimum this car is not a one-off. There are 25 CLK GTRs which were sold to the public, 6 of those being convertibles as seen in the video. If things went wrong in the video, it wouldn't be a complete crisis with 5 others of its type still existing.

In an ideal world, if I was able to buy ultra-high performance cars like the Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR, I would buy two of each vehicle; one for the garage (I like cars), and one to be driven (I like driving cars). I do similar things with the other things I collect; ideally, I would like to have three of each uncommon or rare coin/banknote; one for show, one for backup, one for hypothetical sale.

Really, it's the owner's prerogative to either leave it in the garage or use it. But if it is used, I will enjoy that it is being used even at the risk of writing the car off.

 

[Roo]

My biggest issue with the video isn't driving a multi-million 1-of-6 car in such a way, it's doing so around other people's cars. If you want to drive your car like that then whatever, but I don't see why the owners of cars he's passing should have to put up with stone-chipped paintwork or the risk of the driver hitting their car just for his enjoyment. If he'd driven slowly past until he was clear of everyone else's cars I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Tornado]

I find it humorous that you don't think it disqualifies your statement that it doesn't actually address what was said.

We can't all have your evolved sense of humor.

 

[Famine]

Given that this is shot around Heveningham Hall, home of Tax The Rich, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the driver or owner is a Hunt. Or that they own the other cars he's driving near - after all, the gate steward doesn't do the traditional gesture of "Why are you driving like a bawbag around all these other cars" when he's leaving.

 

[Danoff]

Because I like cars and seeing cars driven if I can't drive them myself.

It's hard to avoid the cliche but it's a shame to see something like that become a museum piece.

You have a preconceived notion of how the car should or ought to be used, and think that it's "improper" for them to sit in a garage? Sounds an awful lot like the argument that it shouldn't be driven on that road or in that manner, and that to do so is "improper".

Rarity is one thing but at the very minimum this car is not a one-off. There are 25 CLK GTRs which were sold to the public, 6 of those being convertibles as seen in the video. If things went wrong in the video, it wouldn't be a complete crisis with 5 others of its type still existing.

It's really really hard to total a $6M car. You have to do over $6M worth of damage.

Really, it's the owner's prerogative to either leave it in the garage or use it. But if it is used, I will enjoy that it is being used even at the risk of writing the car off.

Obviously it's the owner's prerogative how it gets used. People like to say, "these cars are made to be driven"... I think they're probably made to make money really. What the owner does with them is their business. However, what the manufacturer (of just about any car) makes is a machine that drives well, and a lot of people think that's worthy of respect. Whether it sits in a garage waiting to be used later, or it's getting used now, or it's being looked at... I'd prefer any of those to it being wasted. If someone lights a fist full of bills on fire, it's their prerogative to do that... but it's still wasteful, and it hurts a little to see people waste something valuable.

Edit:

To be perfectly clear, it's not the car that I'm claiming is being wasted - it will be restored from just about any abuse, practically guaranteed. It's the money behind that that I see wasted - thus, my analogy to bills on fire.

We can't all have your evolved sense of humor.

...that's not evolved. That's more of the "ow my balls" variety.

 

[Liquid]

You have a preconceived notion of how the car should or ought to be used, and think that it's "improper" for them to sit in a garage? Sounds an awful lot like the argument that it shouldn't be driven on that road or in that manner, and that to do so is "improper"

Yes I do have a preconceived notion of how the car should or ought to be used and I don't see a contradiction between what I feel and what the owner does because as I said, it's the owner's prerogative whether I, or anyone else, likes or or doesn't like it.

It's really really hard to total a $6M car. You have to do over $6M worth of damage.

Is the car worth $6,000,000? A CLK GTR convertible was auctioned in 2009 at a price of £600,000 or $900,000. I also never mentioned the car being a write-off, only that if something went wrong, let's say a crash which broke the front suspension and caused a wheel to fall off for example, it would be a shame. But that's the risk and it wouldn't be impossible to fix, no.

Obviously it's the owner's prerogative how it gets used. People like to say, "these cars are made to be driven"... I think they're probably made to make money really. What the owner does with them is their business. However, what the manufacturer (of just about any car) makes is a machine that drives well, and a lot of people think that's worthy of respect. Whether it sits in a garage waiting to be used later, or it's getting used now, or it's being looked at... I'd prefer any of those to it being wasted. If someone lights a fist full of bills on fire, it's their prerogative to do that... but it's still wasteful, and it hurts a little to see people waste something valuable.

We both agree that it's the owner's prerogative what to do, that people will have different views on this, that I have one view on this particular instance and that you have a different view on this instance.

So why the hard questioning? It all seems circular and not particularly relevant.

 

[Danoff]

Yes I do have a preconceived notion of how the car should or ought to be used and I don't see a contradiction between what I feel and what the owner does because as I said, it's the owner's prerogative whether I, or anyone else, likes or or doesn't like it.

I'm not saying that you're contradicting yourself. I'm saying that the notion that "these cars should be driven" which is one voiced by many members in this thread is similar to the notion that "these cars should not be driven like that" or even "these cars should be in a museum". They're all coming from the same place and have the same validity. I was making a broad statement for the thread, not necessarily picking on you personally. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Is the car worth $6,000,000? A CLK GTR convertible was auctioned in 2009 at a price of £600,000 or $900,000. I also never mentioned the car being a write-off, only that if something went wrong, let's say a crash which broke the front suspension and caused a wheel to fall off for example, it would be a shame. But that's the risk and it wouldn't be impossible to fix, no.

Yea that's my bad. The article says "...one of six, million dollar super car...", I read it too fast.

We both agree that it's the owner's prerogative what to do, that people will have different views on this, that I have one view on this particular instance and that you have a different view on this instance.

So why the hard questioning? It all seems circular and not particularly relevant.

It's not really hard questioning, and I'm trying to point out a circular argument, and it's completely relevant to a thread that brought out the "it's made to be driven" argument. I'm not sure I have a different view actually, I haven't heard you say that you like to see value wasted. You were actually one of the people that said "probably shouldn't be driven like that". So I think you agree with my view, you just go a bit further.

Here's my point. Cars are made to be driven? Not really. They're made to make money. Cars should be driven, garaged, etc, a certain way? Not really, it's the owner's prerogative what to do with them. But it takes a special breed of d-bag to enjoy seeing things wasted. Those kids pouring out the champagne for example. Not many people twist their minds into enjoying that sort of thing (and I find it actually pretty close to psychopathy). I think that's really what drives the visceral reaction on both sides of this debate... waste. Some of the people in here (incorrectly in my view) see garaging a car as wasting it. Others see pounding it recklessly to be wasteful. Personally, I think disliking wastefulness just makes you a decent person.

 

[McLaren]

Just for future reference, GTRs normally trade around $2million these days. One sold for just under $3million, but I haven't seen one come close since, even a Roadster.

 

[Andyc709292]

Is that your car in your avatar? Because if it is I'm sure the money spent on those presumably expensive rims could have provided quite a few needy people with meals.

It is, but it's a. not expensive, b. second hand c. not being driven around a ploughed field as a screw you to everyonelse.
I do get folks comment on the wheels though, they enjoy how the car looks as much as I do (occasionally), just as I would withe TaxTheRich muppets if they gave those cars some respect, as I do mine.
Not sure I get your point of view though? Are you saying that buying a car with fancy rims is the same as buying and trashing a hyper car?

 

[Northstar]

Not sure I get your point of view though? Are you saying that buying a car with fancy rims is the same as buying and trashing a hyper car?

I'm saying don't complain about people spending money on luxuries instead of using that money on charity when you do the same thing.

And just so you know, the family behind TaxTheRich holds a county fair every year and all proceeds go to local charities.

 

[Danoff]

I'm saying don't complain about people spending money on luxuries instead of using that money on charity when you do the same thing.

I'm not sure anyone on here has complained about people spending money on luxuries. Maybe, but I don't think it was one of @Andyc709292's posts that you quoted. Again, an underlying theme about what bothers people (seemingly on multiple sides of this at least 3-sided debate) is waste, that's not the same as luxury.

 

[Northstar]

I'm not sure anyone on here has complained about people spending money on luxuries. Maybe, but I don't think it was one of @Andyc709292's posts that you quoted.

Remember nothing is stopping those idiotic ***** from donating their tax free money to something worthwhile, to say I wish them bad karma is an understatement to the max.

Sure sounds like complaining about people spending money on luxuries to me...

waste, that's not the same as luxury.

That seems very much like an "eye of the beholder" situation. For instance, buying something like an NSX may seem incredibly wasteful to some as it really has little to no practical value, but I'm sure to you it's a justifiable expenditure. Likewise, spending hundreds on a vinyl record collection could also be deemed a wasteful expenditure to some, but to me it's a luxury that I feel is worth every penny I have spent.

 

[Danoff]

Sure sounds like complaining about people spending money on luxuries to me...

That's not how I see it. It looks like he's saying that there are better things to do with money that waste it.

That seems very much like an "eye of the beholder" situation. For instance, buying something like an NSX may seem incredibly wasteful to some as it really has little to no practical value, but I'm sure to you it's a justifiable expenditure. Likewise, spending hundreds on a vinyl record collection could also be deemed a wasteful expenditure to some, but to me it's a luxury that I feel is worth every penny I have spent.

You just cited 2 cases in which the money may not have been spent at all. If you buy a $1M car, you still have $1M, it's just in the form of a car instead of cash. If you set fire to a $1M car, you're wasting the value.

Would you say that someone wasted money buying stock? Even if someone is buying expensive food and then consuming it, at least it got eaten - it was used.

 

[Northstar]

That's not how I see it. It looks like he's saying that there are better things to do with money that waste it.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You just cited 2 cases in which the money may not have been spent at all. If you buy a $1M car, you still have $1M, it's just in the form of a car instead of cash. If you set fire to a $1M car, you're wasting the value.

Okay, than how about vacations? Going to the movies? A water park or theme park? A sporting event? Went for a spin in the car just for the hell of it?

All those things cost money, yet offer nothing physical in return. I'm guessing those who try the "They could have donated it!" card have done at least one of those things in the not-to-distant past.

Would you say that someone wasted money buying stock? Even if someone is buying expensive food and then consuming it, at least it got eaten - it was used.

So long as you get something out of it, whether it's something that has value in itself or simple enjoyment I don't think it's possible to waste money.

 

[Danoff]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Or we could take him at his word.

Okay, than how about vacations? Going to the movies? A water park or theme park? A sporting event? Went for a spin in the car just for the hell of it?

All those things cost money, yet offer nothing physical in return. I'm guessing those who try the "They could have donated it!" card have done at least one of those things in the not-to-distant past.



So long as you get something out of it, whether it's something that has value in itself or simple enjoyment I don't think it's possible to waste money.

You can waste money, but it's not always straightforward. I've wasted plenty of money at the movies, also spent money well at the movies.

 

[Northstar]

Or we could take him at his word.

That "rich" people should donate instead of spending on luxuries?

Not only does that seem to play more into my argument, but also seems to go against your whole Libertarian belief system.

Spoiler

Despite popular belief, that is in fact a fictional movie and not a documentary.

I've wasted plenty of money at the movies,

Man, you really should have donated that money.

 

[Danoff]

That "rich" people should donate instead of spending on luxuries?

I must have missed that part. Can you quote it for me?

Man, you really should have donated that money.

I think you understand already why that's not a rebuttal.

 

[Northstar]

I think you understand already why that's not a rebuttal.

I do, but I just don't care at this point.

I'll just quote your sig, which I would imagine is something you agree with:

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). -Ayn Rand

So wouldn't other people spending their money how they want to fall under that category?

 

[Tornado]

So wouldn't other people spending their money how they want to fall under that category?

Only if they get a positive financial return on thei r investment in the process.

 

[Danoff]

I do, but I just don't care at this point.

I'll just quote your sig, which I would imagine is something you agree with:

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). -Ayn Rand

So wouldn't other people spending their money how they want to fall under that category?

Absolutely. I'd never support making the things we've been talking about illegal. Not actually sure what relevance it has to the discussion.

 

[Northstar]

Absolutely. I'd never support making the things we've been talking about illegal. Not actually sure what relevance it has to the discussion.

At this point I'm wondering if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing because I'm having a hard time pin pointing what your actually arguing now.

What exactly is your side on this? Do you support people spending money as they choose? Or are you against it? Or does it vary depending on room temperature?

 

[Danoff]

At this point I'm wondering if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing because I'm having a hard time pin pointing what your actually arguing now.

What exactly is your side on this? Do you support people spending money as they choose? Or are you against it? Or does it vary depending on room temperature?

I do not equate laws with values. There are all kinds of things that I find to be irresponsible, distasteful, or self-destructive, etc. which I think should be perfectly legal to do. For example, I don't like seeing people pointlessly waste valuable resources, but I would never support making that illegal. I also can make a pretty good rant about how horrible ketchup packets are... don't want to make them illegal either.

I'm confused as to why this confuses you. No, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing (I realize the irony of saying this since it's what someone who is arguing for the sake of arguing would say).

Here's a great example... freedom of speech. I don't think people should spout nazi propaganda but I support their right to do so.

 

[Northstar]

I do not equate laws with values.

You're signature makes no mention of laws though.

For example, I don't like seeing people pointlessly waste valuable resources,

So you don't do anything wasteful at all? I somehow doubt that considering you've surely taken the NSX on a pleasure cruise or two.

I'm confused as to why this confuses you.

It probably has something to do with the fact you've been all over the map over the last 2 pages. One post you seemingly support people freely spending their money on stupid crap, while the next you seemingly condemn it.

 

[Danoff]

You're signature makes no mention of laws though.

I also don't equate values with rights. Feel free to substitute rights in for what I wrote above. Same statements.

So you don't do anything wasteful at all? I somehow doubt that considering you've surely taken the NSX on a pleasure cruise or two.

If it's a pleasure cruise, it's not wasted. If I were to take it on a pleasure cruise on a road filled with potholes that destroyed the suspension and damaged the body, and during which I couldn't get any enjoyment out of the car because the road was crap... then it would be wasted.

Yea I waste stuff for sure (sometimes time, on message boards). I try not to waste things, but some is inevitable. I don't go out of my way to be a feminine hygiene product by intentionally wasting lots of value. And if i did, I definitely would not post it on youtube to show the world how proud I was of my 'baggery.

It probably has something to do with the fact you've been all over the map over the last 2 pages.

Then you're making an assumption you shouldn't be making. I'm not sure what it is.

 

[Famine]

It probably has something to do with the fact you've been all over the map over the last 2 pages.

It seems fairly clear to me.

People can do whatever they want with their money/time/stuff (so long as it doesn't cause any inconvenience for others doing the same).
Doing something with an asset that can be fixed afterwards - like driving a CLK-GTR on a crappy road - is not a waste of anything.
Doing something with an asset that is irrevocably lost afterwards - like pouring Dom Perignon into the sea - is a waste of it.
But it's their asset, they can do either if they want.

 

[Northstar]

If I were to take it on a pleasure cruise on a road filled with potholes that destroyed the suspension and damaged the body, and during which I couldn't get any enjoyment out of the car because the road was crap... then it would be wasted.

How do you know that's not fun and entertaining for them?

 

[HoseHead]

And back to discussing the video.....

I don't think this car is getting as 'thrash' or 'flogged' as much as it might look.
Here's my reasoning, holding a camera still while riding shotgun in a fast car with a rock-hard suspension is quite difficult, this creates a lot of camera movement which gives the effect that they are going quite fast. How fast do you guys think they are going 100mph? I think they might be doing 60 or 70 max. The camera movement makes it seem faster. If it was a video from a go-pro mounted to the car body it would seem much slower. Plus I don't hear the car scrape or bottom-out on the ground, am I missing something? I only watched the video once. Also performing burn-outs and doughnuts on grass is much easier on the engine/diff/transmission than doing them on dry pavement. Plus the (racing) clutch is probably super hard to engage, its probably easier to just dump it on the grass, spin the tires a bit, then get back on the pavement and get on your way. Anyone stalled a nice car in front of a bunch of people?

The part of the video I do condone (as stated by other people here) is driving in this manner in the close proximity of people/pedestrians and the other super rare/valuable cars.

 

[Danoff]

Doing something with an asset that can be fixed afterwards - like driving a CLK-GTR on a crappy road - is not a waste of anything.

I think even that is still a waste of the resources needed to fix it (assuming it can be fixed perfectly, which it can't). Granted you're employing someone with those resources spent fixing it, but if you burn down your house, it's still a waste - even if the house can be built right back where it was exactly as it was.

How do you know that's not fun and entertaining for them?

If it is, it's borderline psychopathy and it still makes them horrible people - because that's basically how I describe someone who takes enjoyment out of watching or participating in causing valuable things be destroyed. There is a slight offshoot of that, which is enjoying inflicting emotional harm on others (by setting cars on fire, etc. and observing their reactions) which I think is more of a sociopath type of thing. I'm not an expert on mental disorders.

Edit:

Guy who is trying to enjoy the driving experience by driving badly in (basically) a race car on a dirt road - wasteful.
Guy who enjoys damaging things - jerk.

 

[Lizard]

Interesting title.