C55 vs M3 - Another 5 unimportant reasons ...
11-17-2004, 04:50 PM
#251
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
Originally Posted by Improviz
Any communicating you have to do with me can be done here, provided of course it is on-topic.
If you want me to teach you more about off-roading, then feel free to PM me.
Thanks for the laugh. Take care...and remember, don't boast...you never know what the other guy has....
Last edited by Thai; 11-17-2004 at 04:55 PM.
11-17-2004, 04:56 PM
#252
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Thai, sorry, but as I pointed out, you are diverting, and...
...for the fifth time now: I've wasted enough time on your diversions, and won't allow you to drag the post into off-topic land (I'm sure that a single guy who has no need for more than one car has plenty of need for a 7,000 square foot home, lol...why, you could park the G500 in one garage and rent the other four out!!). The salient point is this:
When you said you had your M3 (and were also trolling here), I challenged you to run either me, or a guy who lived in Houston, and you pussed out!!! So, your claims of M3 superiority are rather pale, given that you missed out on a golden opportunity not only to prove your claim, but to make money doing it. Which is what I would expect from a magazine-racing, Internet keyboard-racing CHICKEN!!!
When you said you had your M3 (and were also trolling here), I challenged you to run either me, or a guy who lived in Houston, and you pussed out!!! So, your claims of M3 superiority are rather pale, given that you missed out on a golden opportunity not only to prove your claim, but to make money doing it. Which is what I would expect from a magazine-racing, Internet keyboard-racing CHICKEN!!!
Last edited by Improviz; 11-17-2004 at 08:01 PM.
11-17-2004, 09:47 PM
#253
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
reggid, here is an article describing the derivation of the Hale equation:
You will note that it did take the following factors into account:
There is more, along with extensive correlation data showing the accuracy of it and a few others, along with a curve fit for the data, at this link. I came across it while researching something else, or would have posted this before.
vehicle weight
engine power, and the details of the torque or horsepower curve
coefficient of friction of the tires on the track
aerodynamic drag
moment of inertia and frictional loss of moving parts
drivetrain gearing
shifting mechanisms
location of the vehicle's vertical and horizontal center of gravity
driver skill
It was not until 1986 and the almost common availability of personal computers that Patrick Hale, a drag racer, engineer, and computer programmer, made available computer programs called Quarter and Quarter jr, which took into account nearly every variable separate from the driver that could affect acceleration, including those listed above. Hale also provided simple calculations that, like those of Huntington and others, give a first-order estimate of performance:
MPH = 234 (hp/weight)1/3 and ET = 5.825 (weight/hp)1/3.
engine power, and the details of the torque or horsepower curve
coefficient of friction of the tires on the track
aerodynamic drag
moment of inertia and frictional loss of moving parts
drivetrain gearing
shifting mechanisms
location of the vehicle's vertical and horizontal center of gravity
driver skill
It was not until 1986 and the almost common availability of personal computers that Patrick Hale, a drag racer, engineer, and computer programmer, made available computer programs called Quarter and Quarter jr, which took into account nearly every variable separate from the driver that could affect acceleration, including those listed above. Hale also provided simple calculations that, like those of Huntington and others, give a first-order estimate of performance:
MPH = 234 (hp/weight)1/3 and ET = 5.825 (weight/hp)1/3.
Last edited by Improviz; 11-17-2004 at 09:54 PM.
11-17-2004, 10:22 PM
#254
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Originally Posted by Improviz
You will note that it did take the following factors into account:
There is more, along with extensive correlation data showing the accuracy of it and a few others, along with a curve fit for the data, at this link. I came across it while researching something else, or would have posted this before.
There is more, along with extensive correlation data showing the accuracy of it and a few others, along with a curve fit for the data, at this link. I came across it while researching something else, or would have posted this before.
"In his journal article, Professor Fox lists the following key variables that affect ET and MPH.
vehicle weight
engine power, and the details of the torque or horsepower curve
coefficient of friction of the tires on the track
aerodynamic drag
moment of inertia and frictional loss of moving parts
drivetrain gearing
shifting mechanisms
location of the vehicle's vertical and horizontal center of gravity
driver skill
Fox notes that the first two variables, weight and power, are the primary influence on ET making it easy to use a constant power approximation to deterime a formulaic relationship. It is the variability of the remaining variables and their influence that makes it much harder to determine MPH based soley on vehicle weight and engine power."
It says those factors were noted to affect the ET and MPH but not necesarily that they were included in the simplified equation. His software "quarter jr" probably would have included those factors but i doubt the calculations if his program can be done on a hand calculator in 5 sec which is the reason for the
MPH = 234 (hp/weight)1/3
equation which is created for simplicity rather than aiming for accuracy to the n-th degree.
"It is the variability of the remaining variables and their influence that makes it much harder to determine MPH based soley on vehicle weight and engine power"
"Hale also provided simple calculations that, like those of Huntington and others, give a first-order estimate of performance: MPH = 234 (hp/weight)1/3"
i think these two quotes are significant because it shows that the equation is only an estimate (simplified version) of the proper calculations done on his computer program, and therfore it does not consider everything!
11-17-2004, 10:38 PM
#255
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Can't you bloody read?? I said I was using HALE'S EQUATION!!
In another attempt to obfuscate, you immediately launch into an attack on Fox's equation. The only problem is, I USED HALE'S EQUATION. Perhaps the quote you provided might prove telling IF THE IMPORTANT PART DEALING WITH HALE'S EQUATION IS LISTED:
The page clearly shows that the Hale equation DID consider those factors in its derivation, AS I CLEARLY POSTED IN MY PREVIOUS POST:
Those being above being the factors listed by Fox:
vehicle weight
engine power, and the details of the torque or horsepower curve
coefficient of friction of the tires on the track
aerodynamic drag
moment of inertia and frictional loss of moving parts
drivetrain gearing
shifting mechanisms
location of the vehicle's vertical and horizontal center of gravity
driver skill
Christ...can't you ****ing admit you were ****ing wrong? You're just such a pathetic twerp. Bugger off...I'm through arguing with you. 
The page clearly shows that the Hale equation DID consider those factors in its derivation, AS I CLEARLY POSTED IN MY PREVIOUS POST:
Originally Posted by Improviz
It was not until 1986 and the almost common availability of personal computers that Patrick Hale, a drag racer, engineer, and computer programmer, made available computer programs called Quarter and Quarter jr, which took into account nearly every variable separate from the driver that could affect acceleration, including those listed above.
vehicle weight
engine power, and the details of the torque or horsepower curve
coefficient of friction of the tires on the track
aerodynamic drag
moment of inertia and frictional loss of moving parts
drivetrain gearing
shifting mechanisms
location of the vehicle's vertical and horizontal center of gravity
driver skill
Originally Posted by Improviz
Hale also provided simple calculations that, like those of Huntington and others, give a first-order estimate of performance:
11-17-2004, 11:57 PM
#256
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Originally Posted by Improviz
In another attempt to obfuscate, you immediately launch into an attack on Fox's equation. The only problem is, I USED HALE'S EQUATION. Perhaps the quote you provided might prove telling IF THE IMPORTANT PART DEALING WITH HALE'S EQUATION IS LISTED:
The page clearly shows that the Hale equation DID consider those factors in its derivation, AS I CLEARLY POSTED IN MY PREVIOUS POST:
Those being above being the factors listed by Fox:
vehicle weight
engine power, and the details of the torque or horsepower curve
coefficient of friction of the tires on the track
aerodynamic drag
moment of inertia and frictional loss of moving parts
drivetrain gearing
shifting mechanisms
location of the vehicle's vertical and horizontal center of gravity
driver skill
Christ...can't you ****ing admit you were ****ing wrong? You're just such a pathetic twerp. Bugger off...I'm through arguing with you.
The page clearly shows that the Hale equation DID consider those factors in its derivation, AS I CLEARLY POSTED IN MY PREVIOUS POST:
Those being above being the factors listed by Fox:
vehicle weight
engine power, and the details of the torque or horsepower curve
coefficient of friction of the tires on the track
aerodynamic drag
moment of inertia and frictional loss of moving parts
drivetrain gearing
shifting mechanisms
location of the vehicle's vertical and horizontal center of gravity
driver skill
Christ...can't you ****ing admit you were ****ing wrong? You're just such a pathetic twerp. Bugger off...I'm through arguing with you.
Anyway, did you not read this part.
It was not until 1986 and the almost common availability of personal computers that Patrick Hale, a drag racer, engineer, and computer programmer, made available computer programs called Quarter and Quarter jr, which took into account nearly every variable separate from the driver that could affect acceleration, including those listed above. Hale also provided simple calculations that, like those of Huntington and others, give a first-order estimate of performance:
MPH = 234 (hp/weight)1/3
yes, it clearly says he included all the factors in his computer program, the problem is that you only used the simple estimate equation and not the full program!!!
11-21-2004, 01:21 PM
#258
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Yeah, and look at what he's doing now:
Originally Posted by ro0zy
funny that Thai whimped out on the race..well at least we can race our G's now..2005 g55 coming in soon
Guess the truth hurts, lol! :rofl:
11-21-2004, 01:35 PM
#259
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
Originally Posted by Improviz
He got so incensed that I showed him up as a worthless wimp that he's launched a jihad against me, lol! Guess the truth hurts, lol! :rofl:
Guess the truth hurts, lol! :rofl:
12-02-2004, 11:56 PM
#260
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The blue white rock, third out.
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 C230 Coupe(M111)
Originally Posted by MerlinMc
I agree with FrankW that the Corvette and CTS would not be on the shopping list for someone looking at an C55/M3/S4.
01-10-2005, 02:11 AM
#261
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Improviz
You will note that as is his custom, 321ponies/343bhp (as he's known when he trolls the Audiworld B6 S4 forum, as he's been doing for over three years now)/M&M (as he goes by here) ignores part of my argument. I said two things: 1) that a ****STOCK**** M3 is not capable of a 1.7 60'/12.6 1/4 mile, *and* 2) that it is possible to modify digital video (as anyone who's ever worked with digital technology can attest).
So, he ignores the stock vs non-stock part of my argument, which is far more important, and posts videos, very carefully focusing on only the modded *video* portion, NOT the modded car part. Why? Well, I invite each and every one of you to examine the videos. NONE of them demonstrate that the cars are stock, and in fact ALL of them demonstrate that the cars were NOT stock. Which is why 321ponies/343bhp/M&M very pointedly did not argue this point; because he knew the videos would bust him. But I have a good memory. Here is what I wrote:
Below you can see what "evidence" M&M posted in reply. Here is a point-by-point commentary to each of the videos:
First video: a video from within a car. No time reference. NO way to verify car was stock or not.
Second video: same thing. NO way to verify car was stock or not.
Third video: the run I'd seen from the track. NO closeup of car; shot from bleachers, very obviously NOT wearing stock wheels. NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced, and NO way to verify car was stock or not.
Fourth video: car is visible from side up close, very obviously NOT wearing stock wheels. No way to determine whether or not rubber is stock, but the wheels are DEFINITELY not stock M3 rims. NO way to verify car was otherwise stock or not.
Fifth video: same as first and second: inside car, NO time reference, NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced.
Sixth: again: car not wearing stock wheels. No closeup from side; shot from distance in bleachers. NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced.
Seventh: No closeup from side; shot from side, very obviously NOT wearing stock wheels. NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced.
Last, of him driving a different car: car is obviously modified: non-stock exhaust, AND front and rear wheels don't match. A dead giveaway that someone's got drag radials on the back; people normally keep the stock tires on the stock rims, and substitute the wheels with the drag radials on the rear when they go to the track.
Conclusive evidence that the cars were stock: zero. ALL videos show that the vehicles are NOT running stock rims, when by default means that they were NOT running stock rubber. NO videos show state of tune of the cars, or whether any modifications to vehicles were done, and BOTH cars clearly sound as though they're running nonstock exhaust.
Finally, a timeslip. There are about 500 websites out on the web where one can get a timeslip. Timeslips don't have any proof that a particular vehicle even produced them, let alone whether the vehicle in question is stock.
321ponies/343bhp/M&M, if you were in a court of law on this one, you would have failed to meet any burden of proof whatsoever. Nice try, loser, but those cars aren't stock.
So, he ignores the stock vs non-stock part of my argument, which is far more important, and posts videos, very carefully focusing on only the modded *video* portion, NOT the modded car part. Why? Well, I invite each and every one of you to examine the videos. NONE of them demonstrate that the cars are stock, and in fact ALL of them demonstrate that the cars were NOT stock. Which is why 321ponies/343bhp/M&M very pointedly did not argue this point; because he knew the videos would bust him. But I have a good memory. Here is what I wrote:
Below you can see what "evidence" M&M posted in reply. Here is a point-by-point commentary to each of the videos:
First video: a video from within a car. No time reference. NO way to verify car was stock or not.
Second video: same thing. NO way to verify car was stock or not.
Third video: the run I'd seen from the track. NO closeup of car; shot from bleachers, very obviously NOT wearing stock wheels. NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced, and NO way to verify car was stock or not.
Fourth video: car is visible from side up close, very obviously NOT wearing stock wheels. No way to determine whether or not rubber is stock, but the wheels are DEFINITELY not stock M3 rims. NO way to verify car was otherwise stock or not.
Fifth video: same as first and second: inside car, NO time reference, NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced.
Sixth: again: car not wearing stock wheels. No closeup from side; shot from distance in bleachers. NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced.
Seventh: No closeup from side; shot from side, very obviously NOT wearing stock wheels. NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced.
Last, of him driving a different car: car is obviously modified: non-stock exhaust, AND front and rear wheels don't match. A dead giveaway that someone's got drag radials on the back; people normally keep the stock tires on the stock rims, and substitute the wheels with the drag radials on the rear when they go to the track.
Conclusive evidence that the cars were stock: zero. ALL videos show that the vehicles are NOT running stock rims, when by default means that they were NOT running stock rubber. NO videos show state of tune of the cars, or whether any modifications to vehicles were done, and BOTH cars clearly sound as though they're running nonstock exhaust.
Finally, a timeslip. There are about 500 websites out on the web where one can get a timeslip. Timeslips don't have any proof that a particular vehicle even produced them, let alone whether the vehicle in question is stock.
321ponies/343bhp/M&M, if you were in a court of law on this one, you would have failed to meet any burden of proof whatsoever. Nice try, loser, but those cars aren't stock.
the M3 that ran the 12.7xx IS stock...he's over at the M3 forum.
with a few mods, chip, intake, rear differn. he ran a 12.4xx.
01-10-2005, 09:12 AM
#262
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55AMG W203; 330i E90
This thread I started has been on the Top 5 most popular in this forum, are we still gonna continue the discussion to make this thread Number One 
I got a ticket because I was chasing a M3 , so I guess I can't prove it by myself any more; hope our C55 racers here show us more killing stories
I got a ticket because I was chasing a M3 , so I guess I can't prove it by myself any more; hope our C55 racers here show us more killing stories
01-11-2005, 11:59 PM
#263
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
False.
Originally Posted by boxed
the M3 that ran the 12.7xx IS stock...he's over at the M3 forum.
with a few mods, chip, intake, rear differn. he ran a 12.4xx.
with a few mods, chip, intake, rear differn. he ran a 12.4xx.
01-12-2005, 09:01 AM
#266
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: France
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL65/ML55/BMW M3 CSL
Originally Posted by Thai
Not anytime soon...i have a newly published brochure for the AMG cars, including CLS55, SL65, CLS65, SLK55. None of them have LSD. What a waste of engine power!
Then you should really visit your optician :p .....
My SL65 was delivered with LSD .... ( IMHO the only AMG street car - which has this item as a standard item) As well it is possible, here in Europe to order your C55, or E55 with an LSD, ex delivery Affalterbach.
kind regards from France
Walter
05-31-2005, 06:09 PM
#267
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 197
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1990 560 SEC (modified), SLK55, CLK500
LSD in AMG
My 560SEC has AMG running gear. It has GT-LSD, excellant for performance, but nightmare if they wanted to provide warranty for it. Also, the w126 v8s had LSD as stock option. MBZ chose electronic traction control (ASR, ESP, etcetera) because it is lighter, more flexible, and is less likely to cause mechanical wear (other than brake pads). It is also safer for the majority of drivers, as LSD can cause traction problems for inexperianced drivers with high hp cars.
LSD is also available at the AMG factory for current AMG cars, you just have to take your car there. If you are serious enough about racing, you should be able to get one.
LSD is also available at the AMG factory for current AMG cars, you just have to take your car there. If you are serious enough about racing, you should be able to get one.
05-31-2005, 11:51 PM
#270
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Can't believe I missed this one....
Originally Posted by M&M, BMW's paid three-year plus Internet spokesman
No its not addressed there. You weren't there so you can't tell whether the car was stock or not.
06-01-2005, 02:29 AM
#271
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 C55 AMG (Capri Blue)
Originally Posted by Thai
Pontiac Aztec can be considered "exclusive" too. So can my G-wagen. Even i admit that the G-wagens don't sell well...thus, it's "exclusive." 
I just hate people blaming the M3 for being around too much. THINK. M3's are STILL selling near or at MSRP. When i got my M3 in 4/03, everyone was paying MSRP. So, how is BMW not making as much profit as AMG/MB???????????? Am i missing something??
You mentioned Evo, STi, Porsche, Corvettes...well, ALL OF THEM have at least AWD or LSDs. You just compared the M3 to the top track cars in the world...THANKS. Evo and STi have BOTH AWD and LSD's! I thought that we were talking about M3 vs. C32/55??
C55 AMG is basically a C230 Sport with a big engine to go down a straight road?? If you think so, then you won't get an argument from me. I agree. So, is AMG only mean engine power?? I thought they messed with suspension (shocks, springs, sway bars)?? If so, then for what purpose???
Another point...with AMG cars having TREMENDOUS torque/power, i sincerely believe that LSD's will help you get power to the ground more effectively. Traction control is a dumb, half-assed way, especially when it cuts engine power!
If you are in self-denial about the lack of LSD, then so be it. Why did you buy the C32/55 in the first place?? If you want comfort, then you should have gotten the Caddy Deville!
AT LEAST, M cars try to keep it's racing heritage. AMG is the one that is "faking" it to their owners.
As for your A4, i think that it up in the air. A heavily modded M3 can easily hang with you. As some magazines have pointed out, the M3 (in stock form) can hang with or even beat S4 on the track...even on a wet track! So, LSD is pretty nice, isn't it??
I just hate people blaming the M3 for being around too much. THINK. M3's are STILL selling near or at MSRP. When i got my M3 in 4/03, everyone was paying MSRP. So, how is BMW not making as much profit as AMG/MB???????????? Am i missing something??You mentioned Evo, STi, Porsche, Corvettes...well, ALL OF THEM have at least AWD or LSDs. You just compared the M3 to the top track cars in the world...THANKS. Evo and STi have BOTH AWD and LSD's! I thought that we were talking about M3 vs. C32/55??
C55 AMG is basically a C230 Sport with a big engine to go down a straight road?? If you think so, then you won't get an argument from me. I agree. So, is AMG only mean engine power?? I thought they messed with suspension (shocks, springs, sway bars)?? If so, then for what purpose???
Another point...with AMG cars having TREMENDOUS torque/power, i sincerely believe that LSD's will help you get power to the ground more effectively. Traction control is a dumb, half-assed way, especially when it cuts engine power!
If you are in self-denial about the lack of LSD, then so be it. Why did you buy the C32/55 in the first place?? If you want comfort, then you should have gotten the Caddy Deville!
AT LEAST, M cars try to keep it's racing heritage. AMG is the one that is "faking" it to their owners.
As for your A4, i think that it up in the air. A heavily modded M3 can easily hang with you. As some magazines have pointed out, the M3 (in stock form) can hang with or even beat S4 on the track...even on a wet track! So, LSD is pretty nice, isn't it??
06-01-2005, 03:01 AM
#272
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-01-2005, 06:56 AM
#273
Guest
Posts: n/a
oh my god oh my god!!!! sheesh jesus! m3 c55 m3 c55 -_- so sick of hearing it!
both are very different! no matter what c55 smokes m3 in a straight line! coz i have been smoking m3 with my stock motor since day 1 i got the car!!!! so hell with m3!
but hey in corners!! damn that m3 is the bomb!
both are very different! no matter what c55 smokes m3 in a straight line! coz i have been smoking m3 with my stock motor since day 1 i got the car!!!! so hell with m3!
but hey in corners!! damn that m3 is the bomb!
06-01-2005, 01:47 PM
#274
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by Paid BMW Internet Troll and Spokesperson M&M
So it all boils down to personal preference...except to wannabes and magazine racers who base their purchases upon a second or so at a racetrack, oh, and those who are compensated for their efforts to tarnish competitors to BMW such as Mercedes and Audi by trolling their boards and trying to sell more BMWs.
Of course, this has all been pointed out to you before innumerable times, but you've gotta *earn* that check, right?
Last edited by Improviz; 06-02-2005 at 01:17 AM.
06-01-2005, 06:02 PM
#275
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 C55 AMG (Capri Blue)
Fine, somebody's got to calculate the answers.
According to the formulas and the listed curb weights, you're M3 is still slower. Why waste time posting links to formulas you don't even understand? I'm going to have to come bead you over the head with a cubed root.
[CAR, MPH, ET]
-------------------------------------
2005 M3, 103.5619835, 13.66572898
2005 C55, 105.2166058, 13.45082356
M3 (weight: 3415, hp:333)
C55 (weight: 3540, hp:362)
Source of the Equations
[CAR, MPH, ET]
-------------------------------------
2005 M3, 103.5619835, 13.66572898
2005 C55, 105.2166058, 13.45082356
M3 (weight: 3415, hp:333)
C55 (weight: 3540, hp:362)
Source of the Equations
