Nope...

Torch, in the absence of more detail about how this occurred I think calling the driver at fault on this may actually a bit premature.
Frankly, it also makes you come off a bit snooty or uppity (which isn’t the general impression I get from you).

As a staunch RWD enthusiast for many years, I recently purchased a 55/45 split Subaru for icy winters and now relate EXACTLY to what you describe here;

Plus, you know, the fact that the tractor-trailer market uses that exact technology almost exclusively. But hey, I’m sure they have no idea what they’re talking about, right?

My thoughts exactly - not to take anything away from this bloke (he’s done far more in 18months than I plan on doing in a lifetime) but the brief interior pan at 4:07 told me everything I needed to know.
This is a “beautiful at 10ft” project car - perfect for video but under scrutiny has plenty of cringe worthy…

Really didn’t think this would need to be explained but the context of the comment you replied to was the balance of tires at speeds >250mph.

Did I miss the joke?
That article is nothing but pure unadulterated nonsense... there’s not a scrap of scientific evidence in the damn thing - it’s almost like it was produced by a bot and yet you called it a “peer-reviewed scientific study”...

Right here... tho we prefer not to advertise because, well, nobody likes to debating with a fucking Engineer unless they’re getting paid to (e.g. other Engineers).

Let me know where that buckshot ends up when you hit, say the 140-160mph mark...
Your method is plenty fine (and common) for big slow rolling tires but simply stupid for what’s being discussed here.

It’s also not as great as you make out - the 33" tires you’re running are tiny by comparision to most bead balancing…

Try again in Metric units and it’ll probably work out right ;-)

How many miles did those that owned and drove cars accrue though?

Back when I was shopping the import scene in Australia I was constantly reminded to “look past the low mileage” on Japanese imports because of a widely accepted notion that their engines likely had substantially more run time than domestics with the same…

Now which one of us isn’t making use of logic or common sense?

Hmmm... did you fail to see the fences are not at the same elevation than the track surface?
Yes, yes you did and I’m going to tell you why...
Because there is a WALL a little to the left and below it :-)

Oh, and while we’re at it, check out what’s on the left hand side of the track... ohwa marrrr gard, is that ANOTHER…

Yes.
Well that’s just peachy... don’t ever let anyone else make you feel less special, even if they’re just being truthful.

Made the same observation myself and was as equally impressed...

Yes, but it’s the animals on the racetrack that are of primary concern... a location they’re less likely to be in when there is a purpose made obstruction in the way.

Teehee... “identicle”? Is that something like an icicle or maybe a tentacle? No?
Oooo, oooo... it’s like a spectacle?

Well hello... you’re a special little flower aren’t you... sprinkling your pollen all over the place!

Just so I’m clear; is your position really that a closed public road is as safe and predictable as a fenced off private track?

I can tell you with certainty that, other than road vibration (and possibly more pronounced aero movement), the physical forces he felt at 284mph would be no different than if he drove the same stretch at 60mph.

Vitals and emotions however; that’d be a whole different ballgame!

When was the proportionality of CR’s results ever in question?
I was never agreeing with their conclusions - only that it is appropriate for them to including all facets of a vehicle’s reliability in the overall score.