this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
92 points (95.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

15880 readers
1024 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Cannonball run, perhaps?

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 10 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Shouldnt there be baffles in the tank to prevent sloshing?

[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 hour ago

You just can't leave it home and fill it up daily, right?

[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org -1 points 1 hour ago

Not real. That thing would crush the roof.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I wonder if there’s even a gain in total miles they can travel given how much air resistance that sail adds. Wonder what RPM the engine is pushing going highway speeds.

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago (4 children)

Same speed = same RPM, regardless of load / air resistance. Unless they have to drive in a lower gear to make it work, but I doubt that

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 1 points 15 minutes ago

You’re right RPM is tied directly to wheel speed. There is increased fuel consumption because the load on the engine is higher.

[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 6 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Wouldn't that mean that a car with a trailer uses the same amount if fuel? Which it doesn't, I am sure.

It just has to burn more fuel for each combustion cycle to keep the engine spinning at the same speed. It's like how it's easier to pedal a bike down an incline versus up the same incline, but your legs will still pedal at the same rate for the same speed (assuming you don't change gears).

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

No, because an engine can use different amounts of fuel even at the same RPM. At the most extreme, a car can go downhill at high RPM with no fuel injection at all, only driven by gravity.

During normal driving, the engine's crankshaft has a hard link to the wheels. It's going through a couple of gears etc. inside the transmission etc., but the speed conversion from that is fixed within a single gear. This means that the speed the vehicle is going is directly tied to the RPM the engine is turning at. For every gear, every possible vehicle speed correlates directly to a single specific RPM of the engine. Fuel use at that RPM can vary a lot though, entirely depending on the amount of energy needed to keep the engine at that speed with air resistance and other factors trying to slow the car down through the drivetrain.

[–] nullroot@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

More surface area = more drag. A big ol non aerodynamic cube will definitely be adding more drag. Other than that, yeah load doesn't really effect mpg

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 1 points 55 minutes ago

Yeah for sure. I'm just saying that the engine RPM won't be affected as the original comment implied. Drag and mpg will definitely be higher.

[–] EddoWagt@feddit.nl 2 points 4 hours ago

Unless it's a CVT, which it probably isn't

[–] teft@piefed.social 41 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t know much about safety but i’m like 90% sure they need one of those flammable signs with the numbers.

[–] FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world 14 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

The number they'd need for gasoline is 1203, one of the few i have memorized. If you ever see a number on a truck, you can look it up on a hazmat number lookup site and it'll tell you what it's hauling. Usually it's gas, diesel, or propane, but sometimes it's something more fun

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Couldn't they just add the name directly?

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 hours ago

When transporting dangerous goods, they must be properly placarded with regulation placards.

I still remember how much they use the word placard/placardable in the WHMIS training. Would be a fun drinking game if you survived the alcohol poisoning.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

Its probably easier to write/print a number on a triangle when the name of the hazardous material is 129 letters long

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

What's more fun than propane? - Hank Hill (probably)

[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 1 points 4 minutes ago

Hydrofluoric acid - some guy

[–] human@slrpnk.net 40 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I'm glad they are being responsible by wedging the hose in there with a towel.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 29 points 14 hours ago

For easy lighting

[–] comradegreetingcard@lemmy.ml 17 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Putting aside the stupidity. What are the actual benefits of this? It's not like gas is hard to come by.. And the added weight and reduced aerodynamics probably means fewer mpg, right?

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

No benefit, its just a gag

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 15 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Given the color it could be used cooking oil for a biodiesel conversion. But outside of cost saving from fuel ubiquity, none of it is an improvement for anything.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty sure that car doesn't come in a diesel version.

[–] Thrawn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Full engine swap? Makes it even more ridiculous if so but someone stupid enough to do this seems like the type.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I'm betting thats what this is. It doesnt make sense. It doesnt need to make sense. Its for the lulz

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

Could also be that they’re collecting the cooking oil for another use or vehicle and just put the hose down there as a gag.

[–] inari@piefed.zip 23 points 15 hours ago (2 children)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

There's no way the roof rack is rated for that much weight (let alone sloshing around).

[–] AAA@feddit.org 4 points 6 hours ago

Not just the roof rack. The whole car is probably close to the max allowed weight.

The container is seemingly at around 60%, so 600L. Gas is ~25% lighter than water, so we're looking at something like 450kg.

I don't know the model, but a lot of similar or even bigger cars max out at +500kg (per specification). Most cars have less allowance.

And this is just on the roof. Not counting the container, passengers and other stuff.

Truly a marvel of engineering.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 22 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Probably corners very badly with the Center of Mass being moves up so high

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 17 points 14 hours ago

And sloshing

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 3 points 15 hours ago

"Cost me a few C notes to fill this sucker up."