Hardly.


It's funny that the guys who actually race cars are all on my side... and the guys who have been on this site for about a year (and likely have no clue about the topic) are all on Zdan and Mtgear1's side.

You guys are nothing more than internet racers. I wouldn't be surprised if your cars and your computer monitors both have matching stick-on vents from autozone.

Done with this.... oh, and another IBTL, just for good measure.

 

I heard that personal attacks on the internet make you cool. Apparently you heard the same thing. Just for future reference, it's hard to take anyone seriously who is speaking like a child.

Better luck next time, champ.




IBTL

 

[QUOTE=S2Krazee,Dec 7 2009, 12:14 PM]So you wikipedia a bunch of information that you don't understand... and claim to be the five time winner of time trials.

 

++

I don't see anyone on his side to be honest, so I don't know where you pulled that out of. I was simply agreeing with Dan.

 

the thread ended here, nobody refuted my traction argument and nobody refuted that torque argument...

everything after that was a clash of ego's


/thread

 

As a person with a degree in physics I think ZDan has the best grasp of the physics. I cannot speak to the s2000 vs Z on track, but his power weight argument is right on. As he said the power a car is producing is related to the thrust it will be generating at a given speed.
This is why you will find some dyno graphs with power vs mph(this happens when the dyno operator cannot find a RPM signal to use for the dyno). The dyno needs to know what the actual RPM is to calculate torque. A corvette could be producing 500rwtrq @ 4500 rpm @ 90 mph in 4th gear or an s2000 could be making 250rwtrq @9000 rpm in 3rd gear @ 90mph and still be making the same power (428.4whp) at the rollers(which is what the dyno measures). The dyno then uses the hp=trq*rpm/5252 to calculate the actual rwtrq.

 

This was a great thread when it started. Thanks alot ego freaks! Sucks that this got out of hand.

I was going to contribute to the myths. Like this car is a chick magnet. And is totally is. Got hit on multiple of times while in this car. Not so much in person just when I was in the car. I love driving this thing through my college.

Myth 2: best cars for noobs at driving. BUSTED!! Just just the wrecked exotic thread.

Myth 3: impractical for moving. Hell no I moved out of my dorm fully packed my car with the top down. I had a mini frig, all my clothes and junk and books all packed in my car. It's amazing what u can pack into the s without tools and a spare tire and the top down, behind the seats and under the seats. Lol.

Someone start a new thread and don't mention racing in it. Bc people will argue about physics and ego willing. Not to mention names. But we all get the point.

 

that's a good idea, hardly got any work done today because of this thread, za passion!

 

IBTL? Hardly.

mtgear1, please stop.

By the way, I didn't know our cars generate thrust. That's awesome.

 

It's clear that no one side is going to accept defeat on this topic. In light of this, I vote we lock this thread as well and we focus on how I can remedy my paint issue in the thread below, as it's a much better use of our energy/efforts.

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=750537

Besides, 162 lb. ft. = 270 lb. ft. if you're using that "new math."