Talk:Burnout (vehicle)

Burnout vs. peel out

The page for "peel out" redirects here. I regard burnouts and peel outs as two different things. In a burnout, the tires smoke and the vehicle may not even move. However, peel outs are characterized by a squealing sound as the vehicle accelerates. Tires do not necessarily smoke when peeling out, and drivers can peel out without using the brakes as they do during burn outs.

Does it make more sense to put peel outs on separate page, or to add them as a unique subsection here?

Smoke

How about some information on what type of liquids that one can pour on the ground and then spin the tires on to make more smoke? I have heard that bleach makes quite a bit of smoke but have never tried it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docktergonzo (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

misspellings

some idiot spelled tires tyres. moron. as to the person saying that burnouts are hard to do in FWD cars: I had a 1995 regal and didnt even need to put the E-Brake on to get the front wheels to do a burnout. simply push the pedal to the floor and the front weels do a burn out before the car starts to accelerate

FWIW, 'tyres' is correct in British English. 86.136.222.19 (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

who is the moron now???

Also FWIW if the car 'begins to accelerate' it's not a burnout. --67.246.187.70 (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC) It's a burnout if your drive wheels are spinning. Hell, some people I know won't even call it a burnout unless the car is moving, otherwise it's a brake stand. It's semantics, really, but so long as tires are being smoked it's a burnout. 74.240.202.37 (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The spelling that has been used since the beggining of the article has been "tire", I do not think the spelling should be changed in someone's whim --Lloydsd (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lamborghini

Don't rembember the model, but there was this 4wd car that had a button to create a short, controlled burnout, apparantly it would have a better launch. Is such a thing really comparable to say, a drag race burnout? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

General discussion

Someone wrote that burnouts are extreamly easy to achieve in FWD vehicles - It's 99% wrong!

FWD cars always have it's engine in front (maybe there is some very rare exeption, but only one I can remember is... Forklift) so more weight is on front axle, which means also more grip on it. Handbrake can only slow down acceleration of a vehicle, but in most cases it can't stop it. I know some guys making burnouts in a FWD vehicles. One in some Toyota made it by stopping over a speed bump which stopped it's rear wheels, and another in VW Golf needed few people to push his car back in order to do burnout without moving car.

The only case when burnout only with handbrake is possible is when front wheels has less traction than rear wheels, like when few people are sitting in baggage compmartment or standing on rear bumper, or when front wheels are on wet or sand...

Mibars from polish Wikipedia (yeah, my english is far from perfect...)

I know, it's unsourced nonsense from teenagers who've never seen a real burnout, let alone done one. But where do you find sources on burnouts? Karldoh 11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain what is supposed to be appealing about such a stinky, expensive, ecological disaster? I am utterly baffled. There has to be some reason?

It's fun. That's why we do it. Also, it's not ecologically disastrous, stop taking eco advice from politicians. 74.240.202.37 (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All motorsport is stinky, expensive and ecologically disastrous... Also people like it. Karldoh 11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

---

There ought to be description and images of static, spin and rolling burnouts in motorcycling. Ferdinangus 12:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

---

How about 'History of the burn out' :-) - Anyone ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xigan (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)