For Improviz
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
For Improviz
Since the thread was closed before I could respond, I'll post a new thread here without any personal attacks.
The seat weights for M3 are as follows:
-Power/leather/heated seats in the coupe, 63 lbs each. (In the Cab they are much heavier for safety reasons. Typical of most convertibles. Not relevent here).
-Manual/Cloth seats - 57 lbs each.
-Rear seatbacks - 37 lbs from a total of two. The rear seat cushion weighs 3 lbs since it's only a cushion over a non-removable part of the interior body.
This is all Lee removed. For a total of 97 lbs. Don't believe me? Look here:
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=44266
Second, let me get this straight. You are saying that *crank* HP is used when making a comparative analysis of equivalant HP increases from weight loss on a car?
Okay...let's take close look at your logic:
Car A) is your typical, automatic, slush-box Mercedes Benz.
Car B) is a manual M3.
The MB (Car A), has a drivetrain loss of 22% since it utilizes a Torque Convertor for it's slush-box transmission.
The M3 only has a drivetrain loss of 17% since it's a manual and does not use a Torque Converter.
You agree that Automatics reduce power to the wheels moreso than manuals, correct????
Okay..so using your logic...if both cars achieved a weight loss of 1,000 lbs each, using your skewed logic they would both gain the exact same amount of equivelant HP, reduction in E.T., and increase in Trap Speed. We'll say an equivalant increase of 100 crank HP, 1 second off of E.T, and a 10 MPH increase in Trap Speed.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.
Since the BMW has 5% LESS drivetrain loss than the MB, it will gain 5% MORE equivalant HP from the weight reduction than the MB, lose 4% MORE in E.T, and gain 5% MORE than the MB in Trap Speed. That is why you *have to* convert to rwhp to accurately show the gains from adecrease in weight between cars.
So in reality...if both cars lost 1,000 lbs...
Car A), the MB with the slush-box..will gain the equivalant of 78 rwhp (100-22%), or app. 7.8 tenths off of E.T., and app. 7.8 mph in Trap Speed.
Car B), the M3 with the manual...will gain the equivalant of 83 rwhp (100-17%), or ap. 8.3 tenths off of E.T., and app. 8.3 mph in Trap Speed.
Since there are differences between cars in the amount of drivetrain loss they incur...how the heII do you think you can use that rule of thumb accurately for all cars? You can't.
Do you understand this, or am I speaking above your head?
As to what the "experts" say about heating your tires. Like I said...take yourself to the track (for once in your life), turn off your TC, stomp the gas and see what you run. Then...come back to the lane...do a 5 second, slow burn out to heat your tires...and then try the run again. See which is faster.
It so hard to talk to someone that hasn't done anything relative to the subject at hand other than read a book, magazine or website about it. I think the feeling is somewhat similiar to how Peyton Manning would feel about having a debate on Football strategy with Norm from the TV show Cheers.
The seat weights for M3 are as follows:
-Power/leather/heated seats in the coupe, 63 lbs each. (In the Cab they are much heavier for safety reasons. Typical of most convertibles. Not relevent here).
-Manual/Cloth seats - 57 lbs each.
-Rear seatbacks - 37 lbs from a total of two. The rear seat cushion weighs 3 lbs since it's only a cushion over a non-removable part of the interior body.
This is all Lee removed. For a total of 97 lbs. Don't believe me? Look here:
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=44266
Second, let me get this straight. You are saying that *crank* HP is used when making a comparative analysis of equivalant HP increases from weight loss on a car?
Okay...let's take close look at your logic:
Car A) is your typical, automatic, slush-box Mercedes Benz.
Car B) is a manual M3.
The MB (Car A), has a drivetrain loss of 22% since it utilizes a Torque Convertor for it's slush-box transmission.
The M3 only has a drivetrain loss of 17% since it's a manual and does not use a Torque Converter.
You agree that Automatics reduce power to the wheels moreso than manuals, correct????
Okay..so using your logic...if both cars achieved a weight loss of 1,000 lbs each, using your skewed logic they would both gain the exact same amount of equivelant HP, reduction in E.T., and increase in Trap Speed. We'll say an equivalant increase of 100 crank HP, 1 second off of E.T, and a 10 MPH increase in Trap Speed.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.
Since the BMW has 5% LESS drivetrain loss than the MB, it will gain 5% MORE equivalant HP from the weight reduction than the MB, lose 4% MORE in E.T, and gain 5% MORE than the MB in Trap Speed. That is why you *have to* convert to rwhp to accurately show the gains from adecrease in weight between cars.
So in reality...if both cars lost 1,000 lbs...
Car A), the MB with the slush-box..will gain the equivalant of 78 rwhp (100-22%), or app. 7.8 tenths off of E.T., and app. 7.8 mph in Trap Speed.
Car B), the M3 with the manual...will gain the equivalant of 83 rwhp (100-17%), or ap. 8.3 tenths off of E.T., and app. 8.3 mph in Trap Speed.
Since there are differences between cars in the amount of drivetrain loss they incur...how the heII do you think you can use that rule of thumb accurately for all cars? You can't.
Do you understand this, or am I speaking above your head?
As to what the "experts" say about heating your tires. Like I said...take yourself to the track (for once in your life), turn off your TC, stomp the gas and see what you run. Then...come back to the lane...do a 5 second, slow burn out to heat your tires...and then try the run again. See which is faster.
It so hard to talk to someone that hasn't done anything relative to the subject at hand other than read a book, magazine or website about it. I think the feeling is somewhat similiar to how Peyton Manning would feel about having a debate on Football strategy with Norm from the TV show Cheers.
Originally Posted by Improviz
Toad, we've already dealt with your fantastic claims with no evidence, so when you produce evidence that a stock M3 can run a 12.7 with no weight reduction on stock tires, we'll talk about that.
The rear seat and the front seat combined are less than 100 pounds, eh? I know Bimmers are cheap, but I didn't realize their components were made of balsa wood! I guess the steel seat frames, etc. are weightless.
Wheel horsepower? BS. Crank horsepower. 10 crank horspower = 1/10 in the 1/4 mile. Show me any decent technical reference stating otherwise.
As to who knows what about the effectiveness of long smokey burnouts when using street tires, well: I stated that a short burnout to remove debris from the tires is best. You claim a long one like that in the video is best...let's see what the experts say, shall we?
The rear seat and the front seat combined are less than 100 pounds, eh? I know Bimmers are cheap, but I didn't realize their components were made of balsa wood! I guess the steel seat frames, etc. are weightless.
Wheel horsepower? BS. Crank horsepower. 10 crank horspower = 1/10 in the 1/4 mile. Show me any decent technical reference stating otherwise.
As to who knows what about the effectiveness of long smokey burnouts when using street tires, well: I stated that a short burnout to remove debris from the tires is best. You claim a long one like that in the video is best...let's see what the experts say, shall we?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
CLS55 AMG
Hmm, let's see here.....
....
oh, yeah, no personal attacks there...
Did you happen to notice the following paragraph I wrote in my last post to you from the thread which was shut down?
Did you understand this, or was I speaking above your head?
Originally Posted by M-phibian
Since the thread was closed before I could respond, I'll post a new thread here without any personal attacks.
.
.
.
Do you understand this, or am I speaking above your head?
.
.
.
It so hard to talk to someone that hasn't done anything relative to the subject at hand other than read a book, magazine or website about it. I think the feeling is somewhat similiar to how Peyton Manning would feel about having a debate on Football strategy with Norm from the TV show Cheers.
.
.
.
Do you understand this, or am I speaking above your head?
.
.
.
It so hard to talk to someone that hasn't done anything relative to the subject at hand other than read a book, magazine or website about it. I think the feeling is somewhat similiar to how Peyton Manning would feel about having a debate on Football strategy with Norm from the TV show Cheers.
oh, yeah, no personal attacks there... Did you happen to notice the following paragraph I wrote in my last post to you from the thread which was shut down?
Originally Posted by Improviz
Now then: like M&M, it seems that you are not interested in any sort of honest debate, but rather incessant name-calling and repetition of unprovable assertions. So, until/unless you produce some evidence to back up your claim of a verified stock M3 running a 12.7, I'm through wasting time on you too, toady...back to your pond at Bimmerforums or whatever forum you came over here from to troll.
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Improviz, let me try another approach here. Why, oh why, are so so hell bent on proving Lee didn't do those times? What do you have to gain by proving this?
What's so unbelievable about those times? Is it not beyond the laws of physics? I could be wrong, but I think you need to get a life.
What's so unbelievable about those times? Is it not beyond the laws of physics? I could be wrong, but I think you need to get a life.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
CLS55 AMG
M&M, someone definitely needs to get a life....
....but I personally would say that it is the person who has rather strangely persisted in trolling multiple Internet forums for years provoking flamefests, not me.
Click here to see M&M's "credibility":
Click here to see M&M's "credibility":
