Kate Wagner’s article was a both entertaining and well written. I can see why R&T would want to pull something that so effectively critiques its advertisers and sponsors. It sure seems like their editor in chief lied when he said he did not know anything about this 5,000 word feature article before it was published.
Oh well, pulling the article might have postponed the gutting and mass firings that seems to be the destiny for magazines like R&T, SI, etc., but probably not for long.
> editor in chief lied when he said he did not know anything about this 5,000 word feature article before it was published.
lol what an excuse, right? Like, what would you say your job is, EIC?
He was also the executive editor before getting promoted a couple months ago. Road and Track simply doesn’t have the volume, either online or in print, to legitimately claim ignorance about the article.
You keep saying that without actually saying what his job is.
An executive editor at nearly any publication will be involved in guiding the content the publication puts out. Not after the fact, but part of the brainstorming process of what the content *will* and *should* be (hence his excuse for pulling the article, that it doesn't fit with his editorial vision of what R&T is).
How could he possibly be ignorant of the hiring (and expensing) of a semi-famous blogger to write a Hunter S Thompson-esque article on F1? It simply isn't believable. They have a grand total of 7 people on the editorial staff. But he didn't know. Sure.
The EIC didn't say that he hadn't read the article. He said that he did not *know about it*. That seems a little implausible considering it's a large feature article.
No. But every single major feature WOULD be on their radar. You don't seem to understand how the automotive journalism world works either. A feature like this isn't just large in terms of word count. A long-form piece in general is as rare as hens' teeth these days.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, you are right, an EIC might not know about every article. I never stated otherwise. But they absolutely would know about a large feature like this.
tl;dr — "I totally promise that I made this call entirely on my own because I'm a good little lap dog for our sponsors, so they didn't even have to say anything for me to pull an piece that contains better writing than the entire last decade of the print magazine put together. I just really didn't like that she came right out and said the quiet parts out loud."
Yeah this article being removed sucks to see, esp as a long-time fan of R&T, it’s a crazy elegant bit of writing (that isn’t even that controversial?)
(tho i’m gonna disagree with you that it was best article from the last 10 years of the mag, if only because Sam Smith’s [retrospective of the Mclaren F1](https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a10368266/the-complete-oral-history-of-the-mclaren-f1/) exists)
Having just read it, I agree that the article was well written and pretty far from being filled with controversial revelations (is anyone *really* not aware of the kind of money floating around on an F1 race weekend?). But I do kind of wonder if there's some merit to it not really "fitting" R&T. Wagner's own views (which are stated several times in the article) seem at clear odds with the capitalist excess of F1 so you'd kind of wonder why they'd send her in the first place and what they could have possibly expected. I liked reading the article, but it also seemed like a wildly odd set of choices were made for it to even be written in the first place.
Are R&T readers really looking to read a commentary of the social stratification exemplified by F1? Personally, I kind of doubt it.
Part of sending people who have different viewpoints to events and then asking them to write about it is exposing readers and non-readers to different viewpoints. You may not agree with them (just like Kate Wagner doesn’t agree with a lot of the excess) but you at least get a glimpse into someone else’s bubble and maybe it grows your mind a little bit. And maybe someone sends it to a friend and they have a discussion about it, or it generates a bunch of buzz like this article (and it’s deletion did) and a bunch of people that aren’t subscribers or regular readers start reading because of it.
The attitude that you can only write things from a narrow lane for a publication is what kills publications. What Pund means is that *he didn’t like* the article or the idea, and so he killed it because he could. I would guess it made him uncomfortable. What a small, sad existence.
Peter Egan wrote an article years ago about how F1 was alienating fans by making itself an irrelevant club of wealthy elitists who didn't give a crap about the on-track product, but since it was a monthly column, wasn't written from the perspective of actually attending a race weekend, F1 wasn't nearly as popular in the US at the time, and probably because he's both male and very entrenched in car journalism, there was no reaction.
What was "anti-F1" about the article? Kate was in awe of the cars themselves, likes Lewis Hamilton, thinks the narrative around the competing team leaders is good, and echoes a common sentiment that Verstrappen is making the sport boring. So far, this is almost word for word a conversation I had with two acquaintances at a party a couple weeks ago (they are both F1 but not really broader car fans in the US.)
Then she talks about how decadent the events are and how for some the pageantry is more important than the sport, which is a constant line of criticism you can see on r/formula1. A lot of fans are frustrated that F1 is less about the racing and more like the MET Gala for people who pretend to like cars. So nothing remotely controversial there.
She mentions how uncomfortable it can be to be a normal person in the presence of such decadence — again, a common sentiment.
And finally, she alludes to some uncomfortable closeness between automotive journalism and the sponsors who make all this happen. Which is an *incredibly* common criticism in the car community. So much so that some reviewers actually make it a point to refuse press trips and advertise that fact.
And all in all, the basic line running through the article is: "this is a cool thing, but it's been taken over by money so that it's more about the $$$ than the racing." Which isn't anti-F1; it's what fans have been saying for decades at this point.
For the same reason that the North American home building magazine I subscribe to (because my hobbies are woodworking, gardening and home improvement) occasionally has articles from civil engineers, municipal inspectors, and realtors. Or builders from other parts of the world describing their materials and techniques. Exposure to different viewpoints, even if you disagree or don’t have a use for them, makes you more aware of your own viewpoints and either strengthens them or changes them.
Of course, thinking is work, and you might be lazy and not want any part of a different viewpoint that will challenge your comfort zone.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I generally agree with your analysis, but I would guess that taking the article down will create more ill will towards R&T (for whatever that may be worth) than doing nothing.
> But I do kind of wonder if there's some merit to it not really "fitting" R&T.
I liked it, too, but it was a personal essay, not motorsports journalism; I agree with Pund that R&T shouldn't have published it, he just misjudged that removing it would be the next best thing.
I learned some things: there's a company called Birkin that makes designer hand bags and there's something called an "Off-White Nike." These things will leave my brain within minutes of this post.
Her description of an F1 car as the "technological sublime" is exceptional.
Her description of the beauty of action of a pit crew is also apt. One of my greatest joys in life is watching people who are at the top of their craft, people whose skill is palpable through the efficiency and fluidity of their movement. You see it in the drivers but you also witness it in the pits, in the glimpses and gasps of mechanical work in the background of shots of drivers and team principals.
But ultimately, I agree with you about the article being pointless in context of who it was written for. Kate Wagner is not the kind of person who writes an article for Road & Track that I would want to read in Road & Track. It's a great article for Salon or Mother Jones but wasn't terribly descriptive of what it's like to actually be trackside at an F1 race from the point of view of someone who likes cars.
Always disappointed when someone doesn't throw in a cheap shot at KSA.
But that is absolutely what they got. I'm not the biggest Kate Wagner fan, personally, but her writing in this is exceptional and she nails what F1 actually is. Most aren't willing to admit it, but it's absolutely a player's club of elites. Good for her writing this piece and while R&T can bury it, I think it'll flourish in it's own way organically via the Streisand effect.
You, and everyone else in this thread, seem to be forgetting that not only are r&t subs/readers aware of what it is and don't really care, they are also usually a part of the club. R&T has historically had an older and wealthier reader base so when an article comes out criticizing that exact base, it's going to be controversial.
The big difference is that "The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent and Depraved" wasn't published in *American Horse Racing Monthly* it was published in a magazine more like *Mother Jones* or blogsite.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd tone down the political words but a general "F1 is for the wealthy and being a normal person in it feels weird, but they do that so they get good press" is something car mag fans would be into. If you removed every time she says socialism (except for the joke about how to make one, that's good) but kept the exact same messaging, it would go over fine imo
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s obviously bullshit the article was pulled, but R&T has always been a very well written magazine. That and Car and Driver are the only ones I’ll read, now that anyone with a modicum of talent and/or brains left Jalopnik.
Her skills were on full display in that R&T piece. She could write a book comparing and contrasting F1 to Cycling and I'd read it cover to cover the first night.
My brother is a **huge** F1 fan and I'm an equally committed UCI WorldTour fan. We've been chatting all morning about the piece, and one thing that's really notable is just how much Kate Wagner *gets* the non-personality of Max Verstappen. And I think a lot of that is that it is also the public persona of basically every Grand Tour contender not named Tadej Pogacar.
> It is hard to describe what I felt looking at that car. The closest phrase I have at my disposal is the technological sublime. I pictured a living, breathing animal of extraterrestrial origin, hooked up to a thousand arcane sensors that delivered messages in little pulses. All the tubes and sculpted carbon-fiber parts and the endless net of wires all working in service to the godhead engine, formed something totally incomprehensible to me, a feat of engineering so vast it breached the realm of magic.
> The scope of [Lewis Hamilton's] capabilities became more directly known to me in the face of that which I believed to be unknowable. All of that was built in service of him.
Kate Wagner is just a fantastic writer. Worth the read even if you don't agree with her take aways.
That link isn't working for me but this one does: https://web.archive.org/web/20240301170542/https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a46975496/behind-f1-velvet-curtain/
Kate Wagner is an excellent writer, her article was very very good. Real shame that Daniel Pund felt it was the right move to delete it from the website. My only guess is that he lives in a mcmansion and felt intimidated :D
I don’t know Kate but I do know Dan. He doesn’t live in a McMansion and I don’t think he was intimidated. I think he, as EIC, decided the article didn’t match the tone and voice of R&T whereas Mike Guy, previous EIC, felt otherwise.
In all my years of knowing Dan, and others who know him, he’s never been one to “bend the knee” to advertisers.
But with that said, the article was beautifully written, highlighted by a last paragraph that should be read to every aspiring automotive journalist. I personally, wouldn’t have pulled it, but it’s Dan’s mag to run.
A mutual frined of Dan and I backed this statement up; said Dan isn't the sort to give-in. However, Dan does have an image he wants for R&T and this didn't fit it.
The problem is now the Streisand effect is happening and once you fuck that chicken you can't un-fuck it.
>But with that said, the article was beautifully written, highlighted by a last paragraph that should be read to every aspiring automotive journalist.
Every automotive journalist who wants to make a career writing about themselves for an audience of zero, yeah.
I wrote about this elsewhere, but she has the ability to turn some lovely phrases. I just wish she'd let the people in the thing speak for themselves a bit. Four or five good quotes would have SHOWN what the situation was rather than her lecturing us on it.
They presumably reviewed it and could have just not published it in the first place if they felt it wasn’t a good fit, or demanded a rewrite, but they liked it enough to put it out there. Only reason I can see to pull it after the fact is pressure from advertisers or someone higher up at Hearst who were miffed by an actual critique of the whole affair when they were expecting your typical masturbatory fluff piece.
That seems to be the assumption you're making. That the EIC reviewed it in advance. He's saying he didn't review it (partially since he's new to the position).
McMansion hell is part of the reason why redditors are such insufferable bastards. Anything that keeps her angsty trash blog away from normal people is a good thing.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That was a really good article, tho I do wonder whose idea of was to have a person who doesn’t drive go to an F1 race and write an article for a car journal. Not sure how it happened but I’m glad it did. The article getting pulled seems to be as usual for following the money. As we often see in this hobby, the best works of engineering and passion will often be killed on the spineless whims of bean counters. It seems this article has sadly been taken down that road.
It happened because nobody on staff wanted to spend 4 days of their life watching a sprint race, listening to Lewis Hamilton, then flying home while the real race was happening. This was the worst assignment available for the month, I promise.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Streisand effect strikes again, I wouldn't have even known about this article if they didn't remove it. Now I'm interested (I do love McMansion Hell)
Unrelated but F1 sucks nowadays. Domination to an extreme event, the cars are big and can't race wheel to wheel, are barely allowed to 'race' if it rains, and sound horrible. WEC is much better.
Bring back the V12s, refuelling, fuck budgeting, make the cars smaller & more agile, open up the rulebook a little, and maintain just enough safety standards so that the driver walks out unscathed after a crash. If I cared about sustainability that much I wouldn't care about cars circling a track 'pointlessly' for hours.
Yes - let the big teams throw money to fight it out at the front. Mercedes Ferrari, Red Bull etc. I don't care about the Williams or Haas struggling in 17th place just because they have no money to spend, or about the fact that they could get the possibility to jump from 17th to 14th with a budget cap (wow what a story!). I don't care about the midfield battles for 1 point while the leader runs away, unstoppable.
Are we just going to ignore the large periods of domination before the cost cap was put in place? The insane spending that drove multiple manufacturers out of the sport? Grosjean being entirely saved by the halo and safety cell design of modern f1 cars?
I agree the cars are quite large, but the grid is closer than ever. Qualifying between the top 10 is genuinely exciting, you often get 5 different marques in the top 7 or so positions. Ground effect means less drag than ever and easier overtaking. The upcoming regulations are going to make the cars smaller and lighter as well.
Now obviously certain teams will dominate, but imagine if those teams are dominating with limited budgets and r&d times, how much they would dominate without that limited r&d time.
WEC is interesting because they BoP everything and make it into a spec series. LMDH and LMH are made to be as cheap as possible to entice manufacturers to join. It makes for good wheel-to-wheel racing but little to no innovation and trickery as why make fancy concept when simple racecar do?
The very budgeting and rulebook you are complaining about is what makes F1 better than ever. It was nearly impossible to overtake/follow cars in the pre kers/drs era, so much dirty air. I fear you are looking at old F1 through some rose-tinted glasses.
And of course, we'd all like the NA V12's to come back, but manufacturers are still interested in gaining something out of engine r&d in f1, and there is little use for a modern V12.
>And of course, we'd all like the NA V12's to come back, but manufacturers are still interested in gaining something out of engine r&d in f1, and there is little use for a modern V12.
Considering how good and popular hybrid engines are these days, that's actually been a good call IMO.
I do wish my Toyota had an ERS deploy button though
Not to mention how the current string of dominance is coming from a team spending all it could immediately before cost measures come into place to get an advantage.
If anything we need this stretch until 2026 to get teams onto even footing, so there’s not an ability to stockpile any pre-work or research into new concepts for the next set of regulations.
A current problem is the restriction to power unit changes. If we have a cost cap that’s being followed, why does it matter what the team spends their money on?
If you only care about the top positions, you are not a racing enthusiast. Racing is fighting, no matter for what position.
F1 is not perfect, but you should just watch old seasons of DTM or JGTC if you want unrestricted budgets and wild cars with hard racing
Indy lost me years ago when Tony George pulled that BS move and fragmented away from CART. That was a whole disaster for open wheel racing in the US and they've never quite recovered. Stupid fool thought Americans just want to see cars going around in circles all the time too.
Fact - before the split in 1996 it was more popular than Nascar. The new IndyCar can't challenge Nascar popularity today, its not even 1/2 as popular. That split screwed up American open wheel racing big time.
There's room for improvement, but the new regulations have produced some pretty good wheel to wheel action in the last few years, certainly better than it has been since 2013. Cars are definitely too big and heavy for the street circuits though. The budget cap has made things much more interesting with regards to development. If the budget cap disappeared, the disparities between teams will only grow. That's why Ferrari and Mercedes were able to crush the competition for years on end.
Indycar is more fun to watch than F1 as it stands, if you want to pay for it is a VPN and buy the European version because it’s cheaper and has no ads (including the cost of a VPN)
F1 is severely lacking and the attitude of its fans exacerbates the issue. They counter criticism by emphasizing that the essence of F1 doesn't lie in racing but with the drama and engineering aspects, while disregarding the excessively and unnecessarily stringent restrictions on engineering. It's a dull unwatchable series.
Always been a huge fan of motor sports, always been a huge fan of F1 as the pinnacle, have barley watched in the last decade because of Pertronas dominance, was super excited when RBR/Honda toppled them, and now…..I barley watch.
I’m not a huge fan of Ms. Wagner nor her past writings, but I enjoyed this piece. You know where she’s coming from early on, so nobody would be under the misapprehension that she is writing from an objective point of view. She wrote with style and wit, and if she was not an unabashed fan of the spectacle and those flitting around it, so be it. It is a nice change of pace from the usual things one finds in an auto magazine. R&T made a mistake killing it.
The retracted article said the current F1 cars are quiet because they are efficient and make speed, not noise.
Noted dinners with Lewis cost $70 for steak, reminding us that race weekend is expensive.
It is well written (as expected from McMansion Kate) but not particularly informative to anybody who has been paying a little attention to F1.
That was my take away. It was just someone writing about how it made them feel a bit out of place when they were moderately spoiled instead of reporting on cycling where there's far less money. There was nothing interesting and far too much flowery wording.
And her comments about knowing this turning people so--cia-list were just absurd and out of touch.
>but not particularly informative to anybody who has been paying a little attention to F1.
Most car magazine articles aren't particularly informative. Most sports analysis isn't particularly informative, either. For the former, there are only so many new things you can say that haven't already been said, given that the actual real life difference between any two cars is really quite minimal, and less so between model years, and half the articles are little more than copy and pastes of press releases; the latter because you're ultimately getting nothing more than a strange combination of court reporting and television psychic.
What I lived about Kate's article, as someone who is familiar with F1, is that it's not really trying to inform — it's a beautiful vignette that captures a scene while beautifully skewering both the relationship between brands and auto journalism and money and F1 without being vulgar about it.
She became “famous” for a very popular blog called McMansion Hell which is known for absurdist but extremely well-informed humor around the vernacular architecture of McMansions. She started it in her dorm room many years ago and has grown into a lot of cool things in life. She recently announced a book deal that is pretty exciting
That was my take away. It was just someone writing about how it made them feel a bit out of place when they were moderately spoiled instead of reporting on cycling where there's far less money. There was nothing interesting and far too much flowery wording.
And her comments about know this turning people so--cia-list were just absurd and out of touch.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
its too bad she never mentions f1's yearly self masturbation over the monaco grand prix, arguably the single worst race/track in any of motorsports; its existence based entirely upon catering to, and watching the rich and privileged throw a party for the weekend
As someone not interested in F1, the Monaco Grand Prix has always seemed like the drivers' safety was being risked so they could be paraded around to the obscenely wealthy like prize stallions. The article implies that's how they treated Hamilton in Texas.
She spends at least a good 50% of the article talking about her admiration for the cars and the sport and the drivers, so that's about cars. Then another 20% is about automotive journalism and the questionable closeness it has with sponsors, which is an incredibly important topic in the fandom. And then the rest is about the pageantry and inequalities around the fandom which is a topic that gets brought up on this very sub all the time so it's clearly of interest to the community (e.g "built v. bought," "supercar v. regular car," etc.)
The reality is that everything that can be said about cars has already been said. Everyone left to say is about cars in the context they exist in.
I found the article fascinating and not the least bit offensive as an F1 fan and car lover. It really reminded me of a modern version of Hunter S Thompson's "The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent and Depraved."
It was absolutely foolish to take down something so original (unless its a diabolical plan to stir up interest). Maybe this is why R&T and other publications are having such a hard time; they play it so carefully and inoffensive, hoping to appeal to everyone while really appealing to no one strongly.
Right? And the craziest thing about it is that Kate clearly really loved and respected the car and team side of F1. Which makes sense: she may not be a driver and may be further to the left than most R&T readers and F1 attendees, but she's also a student of architecture. There's are a lot of similarities between those two fandoms: larger than life personalities, precision, mathematics brought to life and given beauty, engineering as a life or death competition, and an insatiable need to break the laws of physics just to prove that you can. And I think that admiration really comes through.
The problem that Road and Track don't realize is even if you disagree with the article, once it's published,retracting the article is almost never the solution and just makes things worse. The only thing you can do going forward is just be more careful about who you send to F1 events in the first place.
His explanation is literally "I'm the big boss man here and I didn't like it", which is honestly even more embarassing than "an oil company executive called me and yelled at me about it".
Don’t understand how car people like R&T, the magazine has always done a poor job on anything auto related even before the internets of things were so popular for taking this info in… long before. Just as an example their car comparisons r always cheesy and don’t make sense pining cars that have nothing in common against each other
I used to love R&T and they still retain a few great writers, but they've definitely gone way downhill. I had the opportunity to write for them but noped out after a WEEK because of how the editors run the publication. The digital version is treated more like a low-effort content mill and the story pitches they actually wanted from me were about the same quality. It's a shame.
If you read this, you’ll understand why it’s pulled. A jet setting elite who gets to write about sports for a living complaining and judging other elites. Pot meet kettle
Yes, those jet-setting elite adjunct professors/newbie journos with their massive $50,000 per year combined income! So elite! Just think, she'd still be making minimum wage even if she quit one of her two jobs!
The article is fine, the tone could be described as an off off Clarkson, not much controversy, a tad long or boring or both, the editor might have been right…
147 Comments
_larsr@reddit
tkewley@reddit
ScipioAfricanvs@reddit
Slideways@reddit
ScipioAfricanvs@reddit
Slideways@reddit
ScipioAfricanvs@reddit
Slideways@reddit
ScipioAfricanvs@reddit
Slideways@reddit
ScipioAfricanvs@reddit
Slideways@reddit
ScipioAfricanvs@reddit
Slideways@reddit
_larsr@reddit
Slideways@reddit
spdcrzy@reddit
Slideways@reddit
spdcrzy@reddit
Slideways@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
_larsr@reddit
Slideways@reddit
the_lamou@reddit (OP)
daquiri_goblin@reddit
arcangelxvi@reddit
superspeck@reddit
runtheroad@reddit
fireinthesky7@reddit
tkewley@reddit
the_lamou@reddit (OP)
Spetz@reddit
superspeck@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
tkewley@reddit
fivewheelpitstop@reddit
Bonerchill@reddit
lumpialarry@reddit
Wilma_dickfit420@reddit
PMWaffle@reddit
lumpialarry@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
Thomas_633_Mk2@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
sludge_dragon@reddit
daquiri_goblin@reddit
Bonerchill@reddit
Liet_Kinda2@reddit
mkvii1989@reddit
Liet_Kinda2@reddit
Slideways@reddit
oidoglr@reddit
jaehaerys48@reddit
The_Pip@reddit
AidanGLC@reddit
beholdthemoldman@reddit
Darkfire757@reddit
m00f@reddit
felis_scipio@reddit
Herr_Tilke@reddit
tacobellmysterymeat@reddit
pm-me-ur-car-pic@reddit
Troggie42@reddit
motorcitydevil@reddit
Wilma_dickfit420@reddit
KeyboardGunner@reddit
JackBaruth@reddit
motorcitydevil@reddit
JackBaruth@reddit
fivewheelpitstop@reddit
Troggie42@reddit
ScipioAfricanvs@reddit
felis_scipio@reddit
Time-Maintenance2165@reddit
Smart_Rain5105@reddit
greenw40@reddit
JackBaruth@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
shithead-express@reddit
JackBaruth@reddit
CactusJ@reddit
shithead-express@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
Snikle_the_Pickle@reddit
GeneralOrdinance@reddit
bunby_heli@reddit
GeneralOrdinance@reddit
nerdpox@reddit
hi_im_bored13@reddit
SquareTarbooj@reddit
Blckbeerd@reddit
Medalineman@reddit
GeneralOrdinance@reddit
Imbessiel@reddit
Mnm0602@reddit
the_lamou@reddit (OP)
NoctD@reddit
spdcrzy@reddit
NoctD@reddit
GeneralOrdinance@reddit
Blckbeerd@reddit
onyourrite@reddit
shithead-express@reddit
BonoBonero@reddit
idksomethingjfk@reddit
Larcya@reddit
GeneralOrdinance@reddit
peanutbuttahcups@reddit
keithplacer@reddit
Affalt@reddit
Time-Maintenance2165@reddit
UXyes@reddit
Time-Maintenance2165@reddit
the_lamou@reddit (OP)
shithead-express@reddit
fukitimout@reddit
shithead-express@reddit
GroundbreakingMap605@reddit
kevinbuso@reddit
Time-Maintenance2165@reddit
eedoamitay@reddit
Troggie42@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
dfsaqwe@reddit
strongmanass@reddit
Haematobic@reddit
the_lamou@reddit (OP)
new22003@reddit
the_lamou@reddit (OP)
Maximilianne@reddit
Caqtus95@reddit
shamiltheghost@reddit
cobrareaper@reddit
WiredHeadset@reddit
OttoVonCranky@reddit
ForgetfulM0nk@reddit
oidoglr@reddit
the_lamou@reddit (OP)
verbol@reddit