When my son was about 5 I started taking him to monster truck shows. I don’t know why, exactly. He’s always loved cars and spectacle, I suppose. We went to about a dozen all told, driving yearly to Maple Leaf Monster Jam in Vancouver, BC.
I always wondered, “Who goes to monster truck shows?” In my experience, it’s mostly that — guys taking their young kids. There were many young girls at the shows we attended, and some female drivers.
They do _really well_ at fan service. All the drivers know their job is to give people a thrill, and that the trucks are ultimately disposable. It’s a lot more engaging than sitting and watching a couple hundred laps of F1 or stock cars.
Surely the difference is that F1 is a sport, and Monster Trucks are entertainment ? Not better, just different.
If you go to watch the Harlem Globetrotters you're getting a very different experience from a good NBA game, but that's not because one of them is doing it better, they set out to be different things.
Or wrestling (the martial art) versus Professional wrestling (a theatrical performance). Like yeah, I guess it is more entertaining when an angry wrestler smashes a chair over the Owner's head, but they practised that over and over, they used a chosen chair. If he later "wins" the fight it was scripted, they decided on that outcome up front and maybe the "loser" got a Hollywood gig so he's being written out soon anyway. Whereas the guy who got Olympic wrestling gold was really fighting those other guys - under some strict rules it's true, but there was no script, if they were better they'd have beaten him and they'd have the medal.
> Surely the difference is that F1 is a sport, and Monster Trucks are entertainment ? Not better, just different.
There is a middle ground, called super truck, which is (predictably, and perfectly) most popular in Australia that is about both spectacle and sport. It's an intensive race (requiring the shutdown of urban areas, like F1) but it also seems like pure uninhibited childish joy, ala monster truck. I would not be surprised if in 10 years it is a staple of childish fun in the US.
I suppose one could say that sport would still be sport without the crowd, but then most of the premise might fall apart and competition would be different, smaller scale, money based on bets perhaps. For better or worse the entertainment of others often defines sport as opposed to hobbyist competition. Monster Trucks and Pro Wrestling just don't bother with the aspect of real competition, but real competition is usually arbitrary anyway.
F1 is a sport but it was more of a sport years ago. Regulations are getting stricter and stricter, only one tire manufacturer, many standard parts including most of the electronics. They spend millions on optimizing tiny details because there is less and less to do in areas where they used to make huge differences year over year in the past. Basically they nerfed the sport but they are selling it very well, much better that at any time in the past, at least outside Europe and especially in the USA. So F1 is going in the direction of becoming a show. I guess that the organization running F1 would love to end up with a much quicker open wheel version of NASCAR. They'll have to get through IndyCar first, with a limited choice of chassis and engines.
casual reminder from an un-cool diesel engine mechanic, these trucks are exempt from most state, local and federal emissions regulation by definition. You can be exposed to not only Methanol and Diesel exhaust but particulate and aerosolized forms of the fuels as well. If there is a fire you can be exposed to soot wax and ash. if the venue is indoors, thats nearly five hours of exposure.
some of the largest monster trucks are also the noisiest and can approach nearly 125 db. if you bring your kids you need to bring ear protection and teach them how to wear it.
eye protection (if youre seated close) is also a pretty good idea. again, the regulations for a monster truck rally are near nonexistent. they are fun to attend though.
The cheap foam earplugs work very well, but they have to go surprisingly far up inside your ear, and be held in place for longer than you think while they expand.
If mechanical things interest you at all, go see a Monster Truck show. Go see these things move. Go pay for a full seat “that you’ll only need the edge” of.
It’s pure mechanical spectacle, and, like most other mechanical things, recordings don’t do it justice. It’s just not the same. Hear them, see them, feel them, watch them move and fly.
Will you go back? Become a lifelong fan? Unlikely, but your inner child will thank when you start giggling.
"Monster truckers obsess over distinctions among types of dirt the way vintners obsess over terroir."
Are the author and publication trying to sound as condescending and uppity as possible? Honestly, this reads like the kind of thing that "Frasier" mocked so perfectly about upscale sophisticates living in a bubble.
I was never a big fan of monster truck rallies, but it's easy to understand what was so fun about them. Articles like this that deign to explain the finer points of monster truck rallies (while using esoteric references to wine sampling) for their audience of sophisticates tell me just how useless publications like the "The New Yorker" really are anymore.
I'm genuinely confused by what you're outraged by here. The average New Yorker reader knows more about wines than monster trucks, so they're trying to put it in terms that will make sense to their readers.
If anything, the article reads as the opposite of pretentious to me: it makes it clear that monster trucking isn't just brainless amusement for inbred yokels, but a sport where things like the exact composition of dirt is critically important.
I feel like an article that starts with "A monster trucker is the kind of person who has a favorite type of dirt." is trying to say something about "the kind of person who has a favorite type of dirt", and fans thereof, and its not positive.
The whole article reads to me with the same smug superiority as an Onion article about, well, self-described sophisticates enjoying things with a smug sense of superiority[0]. The thing curiously absent from the article is any sort of enthusiasm for the subject matter. Its all very clinical, and seems at best bemused about other people's enthusiasm, without anything to suggest why that enthusiasm might be justified.
"isn't just brainless amusement for inbred yokels"
The article never made reference to "inbred yokels". It didn't have to. It can couch its descriptions in the language of coastal elites who supposedly know more of wine and polo than they do of simple things like truck rallies. And while it's ostensibly explaining how "sophisticated" the sport is, the readers will fully understand the "isn't just brainless amusement for inbred yokels" part.
I wouldn't characterize my response as one of outrage. But I do find it off-putting and pretentious.
There is nothing condescending about that analogy. Debatable whether "terroir" is esoteric, but even without knowing about winemaking you can understand the point that the quality of dirt is of surprising significance to monster truck rallies.
And an article which aims to spread cross-cultural appreciation for a fun, harmless event is not useless. What is useless is unconstructive negativity.
I have to question how "surprising" the significance of dirt composition is. The characteristics of dirt and mud (and the tires themselves) will affect all aspects of how the truck behaves and handles. How is it surprising that one who enjoys the activity would be deeply invested in the very ground on which everything happens?
If the article actually was trying to spread any kind of real appreciation for monster trucking or why they're so much fun, I would be all for it. However, it reads like some outsider describing observations of an untouched tribe in the jungles of South America. No matter how much they write of their interesting findings, they're not trying to convince any of us to give up modern life and join the tribe.
I don’t understand what you’re considering as uppity as it was probably the only highbrow analogy in the entire piece, the rest being pretty accessible and readable. Also you’re evaluating a line from the ... New Yorker which you consider useless, may as well stick to Popular Science if you want just the facts and a little less literary exposition.
This is the same tired critique that people on HN bandy about every time a New Yorker article is posted: “just get to the point!”. If they did it would just be a lot less fun to read.
It’s true though. I say this as someone whose family members used to compete in mud bog competitions (not quite the same as monster trucks, but in the same genre). They’d walk the track and chose tires and set weight balance based on the mud conditions.
There are two separate themes linked to soil in the article: the use of dirt for the shows; and the use of soil education in agriculture, that led to agriculture shows, that, in turn led to sideshows, that led to monster truck shows. I thought it was quite clever that they were unconnected, and yet both linked to monster trucks.
The pretentious tone seemed to gently mock the readers and the perceived elitist nature of the New Yorker, rather than the monster truck enthusiasts, so more like the show Frasier, rather than the self-awareness lacking titular character within the show.
> tell me just how useless publications like the "The New Yorker" really are anymore.
Are you sure you’re familiar with what The New Yorker is? It’s not really a news magazine, or anything like that. Its own description says, “journalism, commentary, criticism, essays, fiction, satire, cartoons, and poetry.” But “journalism” here is not like what you get from traditional news sources. The New Yorker is to mainstream journalism what Wes Anderson is to action movies. You don’t really read The New Yorker to learn what’s actually happening in the world. That doesn’t make it “useless”, because that’s not its goal.
Is it? What's the ideal strategy? The pole truck gets stuck in traffic. There are several early opportunities to get ahead if you time your moves correctly. What are the rules? Do you get bonus/handicap for the length of your trailer?
I remember watching an interview with a monster truck engineer and he said it was challenging suspension design because it was the only motor sport where the unsprung weight was greater than the suspended weight. It’s a while different approach.
Monster trucks are the closest we’ll get to mechs in this world. Massive machines engineered for crazy acrobatics and piloted by fearless drivers. If Japanese were Americans there’d be more anime about futuristic monster trucks rigged with weapons engaging in spectacular vehicular battles.
Readit News
I always wondered, “Who goes to monster truck shows?” In my experience, it’s mostly that — guys taking their young kids. There were many young girls at the shows we attended, and some female drivers.
They do _really well_ at fan service. All the drivers know their job is to give people a thrill, and that the trucks are ultimately disposable. It’s a lot more engaging than sitting and watching a couple hundred laps of F1 or stock cars.
If you go to watch the Harlem Globetrotters you're getting a very different experience from a good NBA game, but that's not because one of them is doing it better, they set out to be different things.
Or wrestling (the martial art) versus Professional wrestling (a theatrical performance). Like yeah, I guess it is more entertaining when an angry wrestler smashes a chair over the Owner's head, but they practised that over and over, they used a chosen chair. If he later "wins" the fight it was scripted, they decided on that outcome up front and maybe the "loser" got a Hollywood gig so he's being written out soon anyway. Whereas the guy who got Olympic wrestling gold was really fighting those other guys - under some strict rules it's true, but there was no script, if they were better they'd have beaten him and they'd have the medal.
There is a middle ground, called super truck, which is (predictably, and perfectly) most popular in Australia that is about both spectacle and sport. It's an intensive race (requiring the shutdown of urban areas, like F1) but it also seems like pure uninhibited childish joy, ala monster truck. I would not be surprised if in 10 years it is a staple of childish fun in the US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkiV59cdR3M
We what we really want us to watch the real angry wrestler/boxer actually go for the owner.
Or... We want to see the entertainer/wrestler fight a real match for once. Or Elon Vs Zuck.
We're hard to please.
some of the largest monster trucks are also the noisiest and can approach nearly 125 db. if you bring your kids you need to bring ear protection and teach them how to wear it.
eye protection (if youre seated close) is also a pretty good idea. again, the regulations for a monster truck rally are near nonexistent. they are fun to attend though.
The cheap foam earplugs work very well, but they have to go surprisingly far up inside your ear, and be held in place for longer than you think while they expand.
Just “dB” is unit-less. It’s like saying the sound pressure level is “6”.
Peak noise levels have been measured at 139 dBA st these shows.
https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/ROA-Times/issues/1990/rt9...
It’s pure mechanical spectacle, and, like most other mechanical things, recordings don’t do it justice. It’s just not the same. Hear them, see them, feel them, watch them move and fly.
Will you go back? Become a lifelong fan? Unlikely, but your inner child will thank when you start giggling.
Deleted Comment
Are the author and publication trying to sound as condescending and uppity as possible? Honestly, this reads like the kind of thing that "Frasier" mocked so perfectly about upscale sophisticates living in a bubble.
I was never a big fan of monster truck rallies, but it's easy to understand what was so fun about them. Articles like this that deign to explain the finer points of monster truck rallies (while using esoteric references to wine sampling) for their audience of sophisticates tell me just how useless publications like the "The New Yorker" really are anymore.
If anything, the article reads as the opposite of pretentious to me: it makes it clear that monster trucking isn't just brainless amusement for inbred yokels, but a sport where things like the exact composition of dirt is critically important.
The whole article reads to me with the same smug superiority as an Onion article about, well, self-described sophisticates enjoying things with a smug sense of superiority[0]. The thing curiously absent from the article is any sort of enthusiasm for the subject matter. Its all very clinical, and seems at best bemused about other people's enthusiasm, without anything to suggest why that enthusiasm might be justified.
0. https://www.theonion.com/ill-try-anything-with-a-detached-ai...
The article never made reference to "inbred yokels". It didn't have to. It can couch its descriptions in the language of coastal elites who supposedly know more of wine and polo than they do of simple things like truck rallies. And while it's ostensibly explaining how "sophisticated" the sport is, the readers will fully understand the "isn't just brainless amusement for inbred yokels" part.
I wouldn't characterize my response as one of outrage. But I do find it off-putting and pretentious.
Let's not swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction either...
And an article which aims to spread cross-cultural appreciation for a fun, harmless event is not useless. What is useless is unconstructive negativity.
If the article actually was trying to spread any kind of real appreciation for monster trucking or why they're so much fun, I would be all for it. However, it reads like some outsider describing observations of an untouched tribe in the jungles of South America. No matter how much they write of their interesting findings, they're not trying to convince any of us to give up modern life and join the tribe.
This is the same tired critique that people on HN bandy about every time a New Yorker article is posted: “just get to the point!”. If they did it would just be a lot less fun to read.
The pretentious tone seemed to gently mock the readers and the perceived elitist nature of the New Yorker, rather than the monster truck enthusiasts, so more like the show Frasier, rather than the self-awareness lacking titular character within the show.
Are you sure you’re familiar with what The New Yorker is? It’s not really a news magazine, or anything like that. Its own description says, “journalism, commentary, criticism, essays, fiction, satire, cartoons, and poetry.” But “journalism” here is not like what you get from traditional news sources. The New Yorker is to mainstream journalism what Wes Anderson is to action movies. You don’t really read The New Yorker to learn what’s actually happening in the world. That doesn’t make it “useless”, because that’s not its goal.
It's the New Yorker. That's the whole purpose of the magazine.
Deleted Comment
World Famous Figure 8 Trailer Race - Last Ever https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_0pVCigebQ
Where's the Monster Cybertruck with hub motors??? talk about unsprung mass!