C32 Looses To M3
08-16-2005, 05:23 PM
#126
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obsidian E55
Any chance you guys can quit this **** ???
I merely asked for a few tips/advice for our re-run at silverstone race course in september, and both f++++ing einstein and newton have screwed this thread completly.
I ask as a favour to all parties involved to stfu and give my thread some peace and quite, if you have nothing to comment on what was originally intended then please keep it out of here or start a physics/bs thread.
TY
I merely asked for a few tips/advice for our re-run at silverstone race course in september, and both f++++ing einstein and newton have screwed this thread completly.
I ask as a favour to all parties involved to stfu and give my thread some peace and quite, if you have nothing to comment on what was originally intended then please keep it out of here or start a physics/bs thread.
TY
08-16-2005, 05:25 PM
#127
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALPINA B12 5,7 Coupe #22/57
Originally Posted by Improviz
I have yet to see you admit that your assertions were wrong. But they were,
I have done 2 mistakes in this post.
1. When I belived the C32 and M5 had the same drag.
2. My writing " less and less" as you imidiatly belived meant that F= ma did not work at high speed and that some miracle should ocure somewhere in the speed range.
Offcourse it does not.
``ll try one last time......
I here use rudly some of Wolwerines points in his post in another thread and just fit some other numbers in.........
Take one bodyshape of a car with a drag that need 360 Hp just to keep a pace of 155 mph.
Now build 2 cars.
( exclude rolling resistance )
1 with 400 hp and weight of 2000 kg
the other with 600 hp and weight of 3000 kg
Both cars has as said identical shape, tire and size, and equal 5kg/hp
At very low speed this 2 cars will accelerate equally fast, but ain high speed this change a bit, doesnt it.
This is what happens at 155 mph.
The 400 Hp car has at that speed only 40 Hp left to accelerate 2000 kg.
the 600 Hp car has at the same speed 200 Hp to accelerate his 3000 kg.
200 Hp will move 3000kg faster than 40 kg will moce 2000 kg.
You can apply F=ma to this one, right ?
The car with 600 Hp will at that speed accelerate faster than the 400 Hp car, even if their drag and power/weight is excatly the same.
Even if the heavier car has higher rolling resistance, I do not belive it would make up for the difference.
This is and was the reasson I wrote "less and less" or relativly less and less" important in regard to weight. Not in the meaning that F=ma does not work at high speed.
I am obviously guilty in clumsy English...... . under a face to face dicussion this topic would have taken less than 60 sec to agree to. No not because I would have hit you in the head with a 100 pund statue of Mr Newstein
( sorry could not resist) , but because it is hell of a lot easier for a non English to explain in speak than in writing.....Right now I am going to take the advice of Mr Childish///AMG
Allthoug his advices and having a physics discussion are not exclusive, they are not adviced to be performed simultaniously.......
Last edited by Erik; 08-16-2005 at 05:28 PM.
08-16-2005, 08:05 PM
#128
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
Originally Posted by Improviz
Perhaps you didn't mean what you said, then, when you stated that mass is less and less important to acceleration as velocity increases, in multiple posts. 
Well, as a Design Engineer, I have ample experience with both theoretical and practical, so it would be difficult to stick me in either one.
Again, just so we are clear: my debate has been with your contention, made in this post , that weight was "less and less important with increasing speed". I stated, accurately, that this was false per the equation f=ma, and I also stated, accurately, that it holds at high speeds as well as low speeds. You chose to argue this point, and you lost.
And make no mistake: this is the point you were arguing. You accused me of not understanding your post in inthis post, where you stated:
False. Acceleration is inversely proportional to mass, at all speeds, per Newton's second law, proven above.
You further argued that f=ma was not the correct equation to be using, in this post:
While I may have mistakenly attributed (later corrected) the authorship of the f=ma equation, and did, prior to looking at my old physics books, forget to divide the drag force by the mass, I was certainly correct in my assertion that this equation still holds, at high speeds, low speeds, wherever.
And I'll say this: when I was wrong about the authorship of the equation, I admitted it. When I forgot to divide the drag force by the mass, I admitted it, *and* ran detailed calculations. These calculations showed that I was still correct in my assertion that whether in air or not, f=ma still holds. Period. And yes, it is the correct equation to use. Period.
I have yet to see you admit that your assertions were wrong. But they were, and the equations above prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt. So please: trying to equate my mixing up the name of the physicist who authored one of the most important laws of physics or making a mathematical error with your arguing the law itself was incorrect due to drag force and publicly ridiculing my supposed lack of understanding of physics is a pretty weak attempt at a glossover.
Well, as a Design Engineer, I have ample experience with both theoretical and practical, so it would be difficult to stick me in either one.
Again, just so we are clear: my debate has been with your contention, made in this post , that weight was "less and less important with increasing speed". I stated, accurately, that this was false per the equation f=ma, and I also stated, accurately, that it holds at high speeds as well as low speeds. You chose to argue this point, and you lost.And make no mistake: this is the point you were arguing. You accused me of not understanding your post in inthis post, where you stated:
False. Acceleration is inversely proportional to mass, at all speeds, per Newton's second law, proven above.
You further argued that f=ma was not the correct equation to be using, in this post:
While I may have mistakenly attributed (later corrected) the authorship of the f=ma equation, and did, prior to looking at my old physics books, forget to divide the drag force by the mass, I was certainly correct in my assertion that this equation still holds, at high speeds, low speeds, wherever.
And I'll say this: when I was wrong about the authorship of the equation, I admitted it. When I forgot to divide the drag force by the mass, I admitted it, *and* ran detailed calculations. These calculations showed that I was still correct in my assertion that whether in air or not, f=ma still holds. Period. And yes, it is the correct equation to use. Period.
I have yet to see you admit that your assertions were wrong. But they were, and the equations above prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt. So please: trying to equate my mixing up the name of the physicist who authored one of the most important laws of physics or making a mathematical error with your arguing the law itself was incorrect due to drag force and publicly ridiculing my supposed lack of understanding of physics is a pretty weak attempt at a glossover.
Impro-man... You get an A+ in physics with 5 gold stars.... Peace!
08-17-2005, 12:32 AM
#129
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Here are your pertinant quotes on the subject.
First, you clearly stated that weight is less and less important with increasing speed:
Secondly, you implied that the equation f=ma does not hold true at high speed or in the earth's atmosphere:
No, Erik. Using Sir Issac Newton's Second Law, f=ma. Period. In the atmosphere or not.
Again: your clear implication was that mass has less and less of an effect upon a vehicle's acceleration at high speeds, AND that the equation f=ma was not applicable due to aerodynamc drag.
I have shown quite conclusively that both of these assertions are wrong.
And now, even though I showed that your hypothetical experiment was wrong because you are varying BOTH FORCE AND MASS in an attempt to buttress your FALSE ARGUMENT that MASS ALONE is LESS AND LESS IMPORTANT AT HIGH SPEEDS, what do you do?
Try to repeat the same bogus argument.
But your argument is false, Erik, because you are varying TWO, NOT ONE, quantities. If I feed someone LSD and tylenol and claim that this proves that tylenol causes halucinations, it would be no more valid or logical than what you're trying to do.
YES, drag force increases with speed. But this is UTTERLY UNRELATED TO MASS. Want proof? Here:
If I take a two 5 kg gold bars and drop them off the Empire State Building at the same time, they will hit the ground at the same time. If I take one of the bars, melt it down, and use it to fashion a paper-thin hollow gold ball which is 40 inches in diameter, still weighing 5 kg, and drop both it and the ball off of the Empire State Building at the same time, the bar will hit the ground first.
Why? Well, duh! Because of the higher drag on the ball. And yet it weighs the same. MASS has nothing to do with drag, Erik; drag is determined by the DIMENSIONS of the object. Similarly, if we take two cars, A and B, with everything identical except for Car B having 150% of the frontal area and drag coefficient of Car A, at low speeds the cars will accelerate the same, but at high speeds the physically larger car, Car B, will be slower. And yet its mass is the same, Erik. Why? Because of the DRAG FORCE, NOT THE MASS. Mass nas NOTHING to do with your argument. Zip. Nada.
You are mistakenly and confusingly juxtaposing two principles and claiming that one supports the other. In your hypothetical example, the lighter car would accelerate more slowly at high speeds NOT because of its lower mass, but because the ****NET**** FORCE ACTING TO ACCELERATE IT IS SMALLER. And again: THIS has nothing to do with its mass EITHER; it is because the lower WHEEL FORCE is insufficient to overcome the DRAG FORCE.
And you think this is only evident at high speeds? Try this: take two Corvettes. In one of them, add 25 kg of mass to the trunk. In the other, tie a 25 kg, 100m wide parachute to the bumper. Race them to 60 mph. Who would win? Or take two cars: one is constructed of balsa wood, weighs 500 pounds and has 100 horsepower, and is fifty feet wide, fifty feet tall, and fifty feet long, perfectly flat on all sides. The other is constructed of aluminum, is eight feet long, four feet wide, and three feet tall but has a teardrop shape, weighs the same and has the same horsepower. Which would get to 30 mph first?
The drag force is NOT a function of mass. It is a function of the size and shape of an object.
Your profile states that you are an Engineer. In order to become an Engineer in the US, one must take Physics, as well as Statics, Dynamics, Differential Equations, etc...all of which explore these principles in detail. Were you not exposed to these??
Further, you keep citing power to weight in a discussion about force and mass. Are you not aware that power, which has international unit of WATT, and force, which has international unit of NEWTON, are two different quantities altogether? Are you not aware that speed and acceleration are two different quantities? The F in F=MA is NOT a power measurement, it is a FORCE measurement. Yes, that's "F" as in "FORCE", not "P" as in "POWER".
Power is defined as the rate at which work is done. Force is defined as a vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application. They are DIFFERENT, and the mere fact that you keep arguing as though they are one and the same shows that you do not possess a sufficient understanding of Physics to debate this topic in a meaningful fashion.
Your hypothetical experiment varies TWO quantities, mass AND FORCE. In order to establish the effects of mass upon acceleration at high speeds, one must vary ONLY mass, which I already did, here. This is not rocket science, Erik, and I'm convinced that you know you're wrong but are simply too stubborn to admit it.
But wrong you are, and the equations prove it. Acceleration is inversely proportional to mass, regardless of velocity, period. You cannot dispute this, so stop wasting my time.
First, you clearly stated that weight is less and less important with increasing speed:
Originally Posted by Erik
we all know that the weight is getting less and less important with increasing speed
.
.
.
Maybe he would have understood better if I said " weight is getting relativly less and less important when speed increase" in relation to the total power needed to accelerate a car at high speed.
.
.
.
Maybe he would have understood better if I said " weight is getting relativly less and less important when speed increase" in relation to the total power needed to accelerate a car at high speed.
Originally Posted by Erik
You claim with all your expertice, education and brain, that the if the body ( meaning excact the same Cw) of the car is equall the main formual to use is F=ma.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I would agree if this was done in a vacum with no drag force at all, BUT as you ( probably) know on planet earth we have this thing called drag.
One question, since F=ma is the only thing important if the Body of the car is identical ( Cw ), the acceleration will be reduced to half if we double the weight, correct ?,
then using you theory will also the Topspeed be reduced to half.......?
.
.
.
.
.
.
I would agree if this was done in a vacum with no drag force at all, BUT as you ( probably) know on planet earth we have this thing called drag.
One question, since F=ma is the only thing important if the Body of the car is identical ( Cw ), the acceleration will be reduced to half if we double the weight, correct ?,
then using you theory will also the Topspeed be reduced to half.......?
Again: your clear implication was that mass has less and less of an effect upon a vehicle's acceleration at high speeds, AND that the equation f=ma was not applicable due to aerodynamc drag.
I have shown quite conclusively that both of these assertions are wrong.
And now, even though I showed that your hypothetical experiment was wrong because you are varying BOTH FORCE AND MASS in an attempt to buttress your FALSE ARGUMENT that MASS ALONE is LESS AND LESS IMPORTANT AT HIGH SPEEDS, what do you do?
Try to repeat the same bogus argument.
But your argument is false, Erik, because you are varying TWO, NOT ONE, quantities. If I feed someone LSD and tylenol and claim that this proves that tylenol causes halucinations, it would be no more valid or logical than what you're trying to do.
YES, drag force increases with speed. But this is UTTERLY UNRELATED TO MASS. Want proof? Here:
If I take a two 5 kg gold bars and drop them off the Empire State Building at the same time, they will hit the ground at the same time. If I take one of the bars, melt it down, and use it to fashion a paper-thin hollow gold ball which is 40 inches in diameter, still weighing 5 kg, and drop both it and the ball off of the Empire State Building at the same time, the bar will hit the ground first.
Why? Well, duh! Because of the higher drag on the ball. And yet it weighs the same. MASS has nothing to do with drag, Erik; drag is determined by the DIMENSIONS of the object. Similarly, if we take two cars, A and B, with everything identical except for Car B having 150% of the frontal area and drag coefficient of Car A, at low speeds the cars will accelerate the same, but at high speeds the physically larger car, Car B, will be slower. And yet its mass is the same, Erik. Why? Because of the DRAG FORCE, NOT THE MASS. Mass nas NOTHING to do with your argument. Zip. Nada.
You are mistakenly and confusingly juxtaposing two principles and claiming that one supports the other. In your hypothetical example, the lighter car would accelerate more slowly at high speeds NOT because of its lower mass, but because the ****NET**** FORCE ACTING TO ACCELERATE IT IS SMALLER. And again: THIS has nothing to do with its mass EITHER; it is because the lower WHEEL FORCE is insufficient to overcome the DRAG FORCE.
And you think this is only evident at high speeds? Try this: take two Corvettes. In one of them, add 25 kg of mass to the trunk. In the other, tie a 25 kg, 100m wide parachute to the bumper. Race them to 60 mph. Who would win? Or take two cars: one is constructed of balsa wood, weighs 500 pounds and has 100 horsepower, and is fifty feet wide, fifty feet tall, and fifty feet long, perfectly flat on all sides. The other is constructed of aluminum, is eight feet long, four feet wide, and three feet tall but has a teardrop shape, weighs the same and has the same horsepower. Which would get to 30 mph first?
The drag force is NOT a function of mass. It is a function of the size and shape of an object.
Your profile states that you are an Engineer. In order to become an Engineer in the US, one must take Physics, as well as Statics, Dynamics, Differential Equations, etc...all of which explore these principles in detail. Were you not exposed to these??
Further, you keep citing power to weight in a discussion about force and mass. Are you not aware that power, which has international unit of WATT, and force, which has international unit of NEWTON, are two different quantities altogether? Are you not aware that speed and acceleration are two different quantities? The F in F=MA is NOT a power measurement, it is a FORCE measurement. Yes, that's "F" as in "FORCE", not "P" as in "POWER".
Power is defined as the rate at which work is done. Force is defined as a vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application. They are DIFFERENT, and the mere fact that you keep arguing as though they are one and the same shows that you do not possess a sufficient understanding of Physics to debate this topic in a meaningful fashion.
Your hypothetical experiment varies TWO quantities, mass AND FORCE. In order to establish the effects of mass upon acceleration at high speeds, one must vary ONLY mass, which I already did, here. This is not rocket science, Erik, and I'm convinced that you know you're wrong but are simply too stubborn to admit it.
But wrong you are, and the equations prove it. Acceleration is inversely proportional to mass, regardless of velocity, period. You cannot dispute this, so stop wasting my time.
08-17-2005, 02:42 AM
#130
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALPINA B12 5,7 Coupe #22/57
Originally Posted by andy_cyp
Any chance you guys can quit this **** ???
I merely asked for a few tips/advice for our re-run at silverstone race course in september, and both f++++ing einstein and newton have screwed this thread completly.
I ask as a favour to all parties involved to stfu and give my thread some peace and quite, if you have nothing to comment on what was originally intended then please keep it out of here or start a physics/bs thread.
TY
I merely asked for a few tips/advice for our re-run at silverstone race course in september, and both f++++ing einstein and newton have screwed this thread completly.
I ask as a favour to all parties involved to stfu and give my thread some peace and quite, if you have nothing to comment on what was originally intended then please keep it out of here or start a physics/bs thread.
TY
08-17-2005, 10:06 AM
#131
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,662
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
STS,FGT,12C,P85D,M4
come on, stop whining... this is good stuff....
Originally Posted by andy_cyp
Any chance you guys can quit this **** ???
I merely asked for a few tips/advice for our re-run at silverstone race course in september, and both f++++ing einstein and newton have screwed this thread completly.
I ask as a favour to all parties involved to stfu and give my thread some peace and quite, if you have nothing to comment on what was originally intended then please keep it out of here or start a physics/bs thread.
TY
I merely asked for a few tips/advice for our re-run at silverstone race course in september, and both f++++ing einstein and newton have screwed this thread completly.
I ask as a favour to all parties involved to stfu and give my thread some peace and quite, if you have nothing to comment on what was originally intended then please keep it out of here or start a physics/bs thread.
TY
09-06-2005, 10:12 AM
#132
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obsidian E55
C32 @ Silverstone
Video of the silverstone show down will be uploaded by the afternoon.
In the mean time heres a sneak preview of a few pics taken of the C32 at silverstone race circuit.
Enjoy
In the mean time heres a sneak preview of a few pics taken of the C32 at silverstone race circuit.
Enjoy
09-07-2005, 06:38 AM
#133
Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: london
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
996 C4, previously owned 996 c2, c32 amg, 350z, R33 GTR, R34 GTR
Hi Andy cyp
A uk C32 owner.....I`ve yet to see another since June 2005
BTW Anyone who uses science to argue needs to be careful - a while back people thought the world was flat and could prove it.
I find the M3 vs C32 stories fascinating, if either driver wants to destroy the other they`ve both bought the wrong cars
A uk C32 owner.....I`ve yet to see another since June 2005
BTW Anyone who uses science to argue needs to be careful - a while back people thought the world was flat and could prove it.
I find the M3 vs C32 stories fascinating, if either driver wants to destroy the other they`ve both bought the wrong cars
09-07-2005, 10:54 AM
#135
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obsidian E55
And here is the video.
Warning, 157 mgb.
Track temp on the day was a scorching 44c and not at all suited for the C32.
http://pound*********/mbclub-file/trax2005/trax.mpg
Warning, 157 mgb.
Track temp on the day was a scorching 44c and not at all suited for the C32.
http://pound*********/mbclub-file/trax2005/trax.mpg
09-07-2005, 02:03 PM
#136
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by ash-c32
BTW Anyone who uses science to argue needs to be careful - a while back people thought the world was flat and could prove it.
Talk about poor analogies...the claim that the Earth was flat was a religious claim, not a scientific one, and the "proof" was based upon a religious text, not a science text. It was the scientists who were arguing that the Earth was round, and they were correct.
09-07-2005, 10:26 PM
#137
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Originally Posted by Improviz
Talk about poor analogies...the claim that the Earth was flat was a religious claim, not a scientific one, and the "proof" was based upon a religious text, not a science text. It was the scientists who were arguing that the Earth was round, and they were correct. science explains everything!
09-07-2005, 11:55 PM
#140
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Too much spin at launch, not the heat, killed you....
Originally Posted by andy_cyp
And here is the video.
Warning, 157 mgb.
Track temp on the day was a scorching 44c and not at all suited for the C32.
http://pound*********/mbclub-file/trax2005/trax.mpg
Warning, 157 mgb.
Track temp on the day was a scorching 44c and not at all suited for the C32.
http://pound*********/mbclub-file/trax2005/trax.mpg
The M3 guy knows how to launch, btw...that was a good one. Hooked up very nicely, without too much spin. Kudos to him...I think that your car could easily match or beat his time, though, with a better launch, based upon your time with the bad one.
09-08-2005, 10:10 AM
#141
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E46 M3, 2008 E92 M3
Yeah was a good launch for the guy in the M3. Looks and sounded like the LC system being used though. So basically all you have to do is just keep a WOT and let go of the lever The car will sort the rest our for you. Almost TOO easy
Keep working on the C32 launch, wasn't a bad attempt at all
Gotta love the sound of those two six-potters
The car will sort the rest our for you. Almost TOO easy Keep working on the C32 launch, wasn't a bad attempt at all
Gotta love the sound of those two six-potters
09-08-2005, 10:56 AM
#142
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obsidian E55
M3 has Launch control., i power braked to approx 1300/1400 rpm but i still got loads of wheel spin and destroyed any hope of getting a good sprint time.
Funny thing is though, that on the way down to the circuit and at roughly 9.00am with an outside temp of 16c we had a little race, he was in front and flored it coming out of a bend on to a long big stretch, i quickly reacted and soon enough levelled with him and got in front and i was carrying a passenger too.
When we got to the circuit, Nick "m3 guy " commented that the merc was flying and could not respond any further to my catching him up.
Im not upset about the results of the sprint because i know it was down to driver error that those poor times for me were invoked.
I have great respect for the M cars but surely enough they have the same respect to us also.
Funny thing is though, that on the way down to the circuit and at roughly 9.00am with an outside temp of 16c we had a little race, he was in front and flored it coming out of a bend on to a long big stretch, i quickly reacted and soon enough levelled with him and got in front and i was carrying a passenger too.
When we got to the circuit, Nick "m3 guy " commented that the merc was flying and could not respond any further to my catching him up.
Im not upset about the results of the sprint because i know it was down to driver error that those poor times for me were invoked.
I have great respect for the M cars but surely enough they have the same respect to us also.
09-08-2005, 03:05 PM
#143
MBWorld Fanatic!
What size tires does the c32 come with.
That m3 looks like a compitition pack with the 19s
iv been in both an m3 with 18s and 19s and the 18s feel faster.The best way to explain it would be like a 200 lb kid riding with you going from 18s-19s
if those are true csl wheels not replicas the weight savings would make up for the size difference.
That m3 looks like a compitition pack with the 19s
iv been in both an m3 with 18s and 19s and the 18s feel faster.The best way to explain it would be like a 200 lb kid riding with you going from 18s-19s
if those are true csl wheels not replicas the weight savings would make up for the size difference.
Last edited by skratch77; 09-08-2005 at 03:10 PM.
09-08-2005, 06:21 PM
#144
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obsidian E55
Originally Posted by skratch77
What size tires does the c32 come with.
That m3 looks like a compitition pack with the 19s
iv been in both an m3 with 18s and 19s and the 18s feel faster.The best way to explain it would be like a 200 lb kid riding with you going from 18s-19s
if those are true csl wheels not replicas the weight savings would make up for the size difference.
That m3 looks like a compitition pack with the 19s
iv been in both an m3 with 18s and 19s and the 18s feel faster.The best way to explain it would be like a 200 lb kid riding with you going from 18s-19s
if those are true csl wheels not replicas the weight savings would make up for the size difference.
They are true csl wheels plus hes got the rear boot from the csl also which is carbon fibre iirc, so hes saved on weight.
Last edited by andy_cyp; 09-09-2005 at 05:09 PM.
01-28-2006, 01:31 PM
#145
Originally Posted by andy_cyp
And here is the video.
Warning, 157 mgb.
Track temp on the day was a scorching 44c and not at all suited for the C32.
http://pound*********/mbclub-file/trax2005/trax.mpg
Warning, 157 mgb.
Track temp on the day was a scorching 44c and not at all suited for the C32.
http://pound*********/mbclub-file/trax2005/trax.mpg
Anyone have this video or a new location for it?
Thanks!
09-17-2006, 08:47 PM
#147
Super Member
My first 'I am a badass' feeling in my C32!
Y'all-
I'm one of those drivers who arguably doesn't deserve an AMG (i.e. at least before today). Maybe it's getting old and having an overly serious demeanor, but I've always just cruised around in cars and bought my C32 just to know that I had power, but never used it.
Then I stumbled across MBWorld, the C32 subculture, and signed up!
I've spent many months reading all these threads about drag racing, kill stories, etc. and thought to myself - "these guys are out of their friggin' minds"!
From you guys, I've learned as much as possible about street racing, what the car is capable of, and what mods are available.
Like I said, I'm way too serious and usually balk at the idea of racing on the streets. However, since joining this forum, I've become increasing tired with the provocation of a neighbor who has a manual E46 M3.
Today, thanks to y'all, I now own him!
Today, he taunted me for the last time and we raced twice from red lights (rolling starts at about 5 mph) for about a 1/4 mile. I beat him by about 1/2 - 1 car length each time. My car is stock right now, but after today, I have no choice but to splash out on the stage II kit from XXXsport and a sprintbooster.
A sincere thanks to you maniacs who have turned me into a speed nut and spending ridiculous amounts of $$ on my car!!
I'm one of those drivers who arguably doesn't deserve an AMG (i.e. at least before today). Maybe it's getting old and having an overly serious demeanor, but I've always just cruised around in cars and bought my C32 just to know that I had power, but never used it.
Then I stumbled across MBWorld, the C32 subculture, and signed up!
I've spent many months reading all these threads about drag racing, kill stories, etc. and thought to myself - "these guys are out of their friggin' minds"!
From you guys, I've learned as much as possible about street racing, what the car is capable of, and what mods are available.
Like I said, I'm way too serious and usually balk at the idea of racing on the streets. However, since joining this forum, I've become increasing tired with the provocation of a neighbor who has a manual E46 M3.
Today, thanks to y'all, I now own him!
Today, he taunted me for the last time and we raced twice from red lights (rolling starts at about 5 mph) for about a 1/4 mile. I beat him by about 1/2 - 1 car length each time. My car is stock right now, but after today, I have no choice but to splash out on the stage II kit from XXXsport and a sprintbooster.
A sincere thanks to you maniacs who have turned me into a speed nut and spending ridiculous amounts of $$ on my car!!
09-17-2006, 08:50 PM
#148
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
88 Caddy on 28's
Y'all-
I'm one of those drivers who arguably doesn't deserve an AMG (i.e. at least before today). Maybe it's getting old and having an overly serious demeanor, but I've always just cruised around in cars and bought my C32 just to know that I had power, but never used it.
Then I stumbled across MBWorld, the C32 subculture, and signed up!
I've spent many months reading all these threads about drag racing, kill stories, etc. and thought to myself - "these guys are out of their friggin' minds"!
From you guys, I've learned as much as possible about street racing, what the car is capable of, and what mods are available.
Like I said, I'm way too serious and usually balk at the idea of racing on the streets. However, since joining this forum, I've become increasing tired with the provocation of a neighbor who has a manual E46 M3.
Today, thanks to y'all, I now own him!
Today, he taunted me for the last time and we raced twice from red lights (rolling starts at about 5 mph) for about a 1/4 mile. I beat him by about 1/2 - 1 car length each time. My car is stock right now, but after today, I have no choice but to splash out on the stage II kit from XXXsport and a sprintbooster.
A sincere thanks to you maniacs who have turned me into a speed nut and spending ridiculous amounts of $$ on my car!!
I'm one of those drivers who arguably doesn't deserve an AMG (i.e. at least before today). Maybe it's getting old and having an overly serious demeanor, but I've always just cruised around in cars and bought my C32 just to know that I had power, but never used it.
Then I stumbled across MBWorld, the C32 subculture, and signed up!
I've spent many months reading all these threads about drag racing, kill stories, etc. and thought to myself - "these guys are out of their friggin' minds"!
From you guys, I've learned as much as possible about street racing, what the car is capable of, and what mods are available.
Like I said, I'm way too serious and usually balk at the idea of racing on the streets. However, since joining this forum, I've become increasing tired with the provocation of a neighbor who has a manual E46 M3.
Today, thanks to y'all, I now own him!
Today, he taunted me for the last time and we raced twice from red lights (rolling starts at about 5 mph) for about a 1/4 mile. I beat him by about 1/2 - 1 car length each time. My car is stock right now, but after today, I have no choice but to splash out on the stage II kit from XXXsport and a sprintbooster.
A sincere thanks to you maniacs who have turned me into a speed nut and spending ridiculous amounts of $$ on my car!!
