StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is "riced", used in this context, racist?

Never heard the term before, actually, so couldn't tell ya.

I guess is depends on who says it and wether any insult is intended. I think the term is more of an insult than a racist remark. It is meant to make fun of the Asian kids that pump up their Civics and Acura's. Ive seen Asian kids refer to their own cars as rice rockets.

It depends on usage. But from what I have seen, rice originated from the origin of the car, which was usually an Asian import, as opposed the the race of the individual driving it. Therefore, a white guy, Asian guy, hispanic guy, whatever can be driving a riced up car. Of course, it has developed into a slightly different term whereby domestic cars can be said to be "riced" up. This is of course different than a tuned car.

"Riced"=All show, and no go...

I don't think so. A Rice Rocket is an Asian import that's been modified to run good. A Rice Burner is an Asian import with stuff like giant spoilers and body kits with nothing under the hood. It's just a slang way of saying whether a street racer is American or Japanese, and whether it's actually tuned or just made to look good.

One of my friends from Puerto Rico has a Rice Rocket...a shitty looking Datsun 210 with twin turbochargers. Outran his brother's Mustang Cobra at the local racetrack. On the other hand, we've got a Rice Burner here on my campus. Civic hatchback with body kits and mods to make it sound like it has a Wankel, but the accel and top speed seem to be worse than a stock Civic because the guy's added weight without adding power. That should provide a small example of the difference.

all i know is that Civics suck! I can think of some better imports to use as a foundation for a Ricer( Mini if it counts, Mitubishi Eclipse, Isuzu Impulse{i've seen one riced out and it was bad ass} ) IF i even wanted a Ricer. Take the same amount of money and Soup up a 350 V8 and it will eat a Ricer. You have to soup up a 4 cly just to break even with a stock V8. Theres no replacement for displacement.

It's not a racist term. Most riceboyz I've run into have been white guys adopting the lingo and clothing of urban black guys while driving Asian-built cars that pretend to be racers.

Talk about an identity problem ...

Haha whitey is dumb.

Darth Wong wrote:It's not a racist term. Most riceboyz I've run into have been white guys adopting the lingo and clothing of urban black guys while driving Asian-built cars that pretend to be racers.

Talk about an identity problem ...

\

B&B need to get on this, STAT!

There was a mini flamewar over the term at slashdot, so I thought it'd be a good idea to ask here for rational replies.

Darth Wong sez :

It's not a racist term. Most riceboyz I've run into have been white guys adopting the lingo and clothing of urban black guys while driving Asian-built cars that pretend to be racers.

Talk about an identity problem ...

My brother fits that description, including the Ford Probe he trashed.

Moonshadow wrote:Theres no replacement for displacement.

Sure there is. Muse a smaller engine, but make the car lighter. If the amount of weight you take off is proportional or better to the amount of hp you lose from the smaller engine, then you gain acceleration. Additionally you end up w/ a better handling car...

Beowulf wrote:

Moonshadow wrote:Theres no replacement for displacement.

Sure there is. Muse a smaller engine, but make the car lighter. If the amount of weight you take off is proportional or better to the amount of hp you lose from the smaller engine, then you gain acceleration. Additionally you end up w/ a better handling car...

Power to weight ratio. Power don't mean jack if you're trying to move a tank.

Besides, all things being equal, a larger engine will tend to give more usable horsepower, since peak horsepower occurs lower on the rev curve. It will also give more torque, since torque is partially dependent on displacement. Small displacements tend to be good only if there's an upper limit on allowable displacement, like some European or Japanese racing leagues. In most cases I'd take an old muscle car with the same power/weight ratio as a new pocket rocket. It'll deliver more usable power and have more pull. The corner may have to be entered slower, since the car's more stable, but once it's turning, more power can be applied without losing stability.

Actually, I guess a lot depends on driving style. Mine fits old cars better; some drivers are better with the featherweight Japanese sports cars. *shrug* Whatever floats your boat .

If I had a choice between a high-revving import(like a Skyline or a Lancer Evolution VIII) or a classic American torque monster (like a 65 GTO or a Stingray), I'd go with the muscle car.

Alferd Packer wrote:If I had a choice between a high-revving import(like a Skyline or a Lancer Evolution VIII) or a classic American torque monster (like a 65 GTO or a Stingray), I'd go with the muscle car.

I'd take a modern Vette. Easy to drive, monster torque, and ... and ... it's a Vette, goddammit!

I'm perfectly fine with my '82 Mercedes 240D and all 60HP, thank you very much.

Psst...get THE muscle car...1970 Chevelle 454 SS...450 horsepower, 500 ft.lbs. of torque (for you metrics, that's 335.6kw and 677.91nm). That's a conservative estimate, too, since people measured as high as 600 horses when the cowl-induction louver opened. Capable of over 130mph stock. Out of box, it could go 0-60 in under 6 seconds, and pull a quarter mile in under 13. Not terribly impressive by today's standards, unless you think about the fact that it weighs more than a modern Mustang, and that it was hitting its stride at the end of the quarter mile. My father owned a Chevelle 396 SS, and the smaller engine could spin the tires in third gear if he floored it (that knowledge arose from a complicated story involving dropped gears, a red light, a hill, and a tailgater). And when Popular Mechanics did testing of old vs. new muscle cars at
http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/ ... rint.phtml
the Chevelle outmaneuvered the modern Dodge Viper, Camaro, Firebird Firehawk, and Mustang Cobra.

That thing is cool, but it wouldn't be able to handle a Vette.

The Dark wrote:Besides, all things being equal, a larger engine will tend to give more usable horsepower, since peak horsepower occurs lower on the rev curve. It will also give more torque, since torque is partially dependent on displacement. Small displacements tend to be good only if there's an upper limit on allowable displacement, like some European or Japanese racing leagues. In most cases I'd take an old muscle car with the same power/weight ratio as a new pocket rocket. It'll deliver more usable power and have more pull. The corner may have to be entered slower, since the car's more stable, but once it's turning, more power can be applied without losing stability.

Actually, I guess a lot depends on driving style. Mine fits old cars better; some drivers are better with the featherweight Japanese sports cars. *shrug* Whatever floats your boat .

But all things aren't always equal. You start adding weight, and you'll get problems elsewhere. Brakes become an issue, etc. But a lot does depend on driving style, as you said.

Darth Wong wrote:That thing is cool, but it wouldn't be able to handle a Vette.

The modern ZO6s are nice, but if it can kill a Viper, it can kill a Vette.

Suzuki Escudo, over 1,000BHP IIRC.

If that isn't overcompensation I don't know what is.

I always loved those ads where they ask which car is the manliest. They pan over a Lamborghini Diablo, a Ferrari, a Hummer, and finally ... to a minivan. The minivan is, of course, the manliest car because only a grown man with a family will buy one. The pissant overcompensating strut-boyz get the others.

Darth Wong wrote:

Alferd Packer wrote:If I had a choice between a high-revving import(like a Skyline or a Lancer Evolution VIII) or a classic American torque monster (like a 65 GTO or a Stingray), I'd go with the muscle car.

I'd take a modern Vette. Easy to drive, monster torque, and ... and ... it's a Vette, goddammit!

If by modern you mean C3, as in 68-81 model(prefferably 75-76) then yes.

If not, no, todays cars simply do not look as good, too much of that aerodynamic crap and way too much sensitive technology in the car.

Darth Wong wrote:I always loved those ads where they ask which car is the manliest. They pan over a Lamborghini Diablo, a Ferrari, a Hummer, and finally ... to a minivan. The minivan is, of course, the manliest car because only a grown man with a family will buy one. The pissant overcompensating strut-boyz get the others.

Never liked either of them, but I wouldn't mind having them, then I'd sell them and make lots of money, I have only one car I truly like, I believe it's obvious wich it is