Originally Posted by LovinSL600

... conversely, if you could buy a Vanquish S for $100,000, no one would buy the CLS55 when they could have the Vanquish S for that same $100,000.

Originally Posted by Vomit

Calm, Lexani, Calm...

If you buy one because you can't afford more than one, then you are a poser, and should have allocated your hard-earned money to something wiser.

Originally Posted by Lexani

I would. Espically picturing that lovely CLS55 AMG sitting low on some HREs. But that's just me... enjoy the Vanquish.

Originally Posted by LovinSL600

OK, I will make a deal with you. I'll admit you are totally awake if you agree to pass it to me when you are done!
.

Originally Posted by AMG_Eric

ive been on this thread from the begining. so cool your jets turbo. i was merely pointing out that your exagerated statement was just that exagerated.

Originally Posted by LovinSL600

While your CLS55 is a nice car, I wouldn't even try to mention it in the same breath as the Vanquish S.

Having driven both cars I can assure you the CLS55 can not even be compared in terms of speed, handling or anything for that matter.

That fact that you were beating the Vanquish is only because the person in the Vanquish was either crippled or just wanted you to have a nice dream.

The Vanquish S is one of the best exotic cars in the world and to even compare it to the CLS55 is a disgrace. Actual road and track test results would confirm this.

I hope you enjoy your dream and are equally able to enjoy your car when you wake up.

Originally Posted by LovinSL600

Hmmmm. Didn't know laps were straight. You learn something new every day.

Originally Posted by LovinSL600

Oh, I forgot, now the suspension in the CLS is superior to the Vanquish S.
.

Originally Posted by Improviz

Perhaps you should actually try racing around a circuit and see how "insignificant" of a lead someone has after ten laps at 0.2 seconds per lap. This would very quickly add up to multiple carlengths, Einstein.

Originally Posted by adx

Lexani- you are getting better too on replys with relevant data.

Originally Posted by Improviz

YOU might start by actually learning to read. It was reported earlier in the thread that Top Gear, which tests their cars around a circuit (this means it has curves, since you don't seem to know anything about road racing), tested the CLS55 AMG at 0.2 faster around their circuit (again, a circuit is a short course with lots of pretty, shiny curves).

So, yes, my astonishlingly arrogant and ignorant friend, not only was the CLS55 tested faster in a straight line (contrary to your earlier ignorant statement that it could not be compared to the Aston in terms of straightline speed), it was also tested faster around a track with the same professional driver at the wheel each time.

In other words, you simply don't have a leg to stand on. All of your "factual" statements have been exposed as utterly false.



You don't even know what a circuit is, and you want to lecture me about suspensions? You funny!

Originally Posted by Lexani

ADX! What's going on man? Long time no talk, glad you think my posts are "relevant" but I'm sorry, I must say they always were. Regardless, good to see you're still on the site.

Originally Posted by LovinSL600

The cars when looked at from a performance point of view are just not comparable.

Originally Posted by LovinSL600

Not good when you start to make things up because you lack knowledge. You are not even worth my time. You won't get another response.

Originally Posted by LovinSL600

Next time you can post and play with yourself at the same time. Maybe then you will have an excuse.
.

Originally Posted by adx

You are always a character. BTW, are you planning to come to the Nov. 5th Vegas GTG?

Originally Posted by Improviz

Perhaps you should actually try racing around a circuit and see how "insignificant" of a lead someone has after ten laps at 0.2 seconds per lap. This would very quickly add up to multiple carlengths, Einstein.

Originally Posted by AMG_Eric

you really need to relax. you are insulting EVERYONE. if you are not a grown up i get it. however if you are a grown up then act like it and dont sink to the level of name calling. i have not called you one name yet you see fit to mock me when i provided you with 50 percent of your data. seriously relax and try the "cant we all get along approach."

Originally Posted by AMG_Eric

now the .2 difference. the stigg took 1 lap in each car. notice 1 lap. he didnt take 100 and get the best time from it. which leads me back to how can you infer that it we have a huge lead in the end?

Originally Posted by Improviz

Of course, these are street cars, not track cars, and I agree that 0.2 certainly isn't enough of a difference to sway most people's purchase decisions one way or the other (it certainly wouldn't sway mine one way or the other)...so for 99.99% of drivers this is nothing more than trivia, but in an actual circuit race, 0.2 is definitely significant.

Originally Posted by AMG_Eric

i know that .2 second over 5 laps gives you a 1 second advantage however that is if this lap occured in a vacumn and there was 0 racer traffic. what you also failed to miss was the auton took 3 times to the track to get just 1 recordable lap time.

Originally Posted by AMG_Eric

i am not in favor of either car. if i had the money for either i would not spend it. however i am in favor of you not calling me or anyone else names. it just brings the discussion down to a sticks and stones match.

Originally Posted by Lexani

^^ I wish I was Einstien.

Originally Posted by Improviz

Einstein is an insulting name? Hookay...well, actually, it was sarcasm....



Please don't put words in my mouth (or on my keyboard); I didn't say it was "huge", I said it was "significant". I said this because, as I pointed out, over time, this would add up to buslengths, not carlengths. If the two cars were going 80 mph when they crossed the finish line, after five laps the 0.2 faster car would be 117 feet ahead. By lap 13, the faster car would be ahead by one football field. By lap 50, it would be out nearly 1/4 mile.

And I really don't like your yanking one statement, which I again used to make a point, namely that the performance of the two cars is COMPARABLE, out of its original context and starting a subjective argument with it. My opinion is that this is a significant difference. Whether or not you agree with this is inconsequential, and does nothing to alter my central point, which for the fourth time now was that the performance of the two cars is COMPARABLE.

Further, I already stated the following, which you don't seem to have read:


Got that? And yet you continue to argue an utterly meaningless point.



I failed to miss it? Wtf does that mean? And wtf does the amount of traffic, or lack thereof, have to do with anything? No, there were no other cars, nor was there any snow, rain, sleet, hail, sand, rocks, boulders, mountains, or other obstacles on the track, and this is intentional: the purpose of these tests is to COMPARE the relative performance of the cars tested. They do this by having the SAME driver pilot the cars around the SAME track. In this way, a relative yardstick of performance for all of the cars being compared is established, so that people can COMPARE the cars. And the established FACT is that the CLS55 was tested faster. I produced this fact to establish a point, namely that the performance of the two cars, for the fifth time now, is COMPARABLE. And your little sideshow does nothing to disprove this, so what, exactly, is *your* point?

Is your point that the two cars are not comparable? If so, debate it, because that's what I am debating.

Or is it that you disagree with my use of the word "significantly"? Fine, then how about this: why don't you empirically establish exactly what constitutes a "significant" margin of victory, and back it up with facts? One second? Ten seconds? A minute? An hour? Leap year? Eternity?

Oh, and then after you're finished, feel free to explain why it is, exactly, that you should be regarded as The Final Word on the usage and application of the word "significant" in the context of auto racing, and why I should be willing to accept you as such.



Well, I am not in favor of your butting into the middle of a debate about performance and questioning my usage of the word "significant", because I am not here to argue semantics with you, nor am I in favor of tangential arguments. And I believe it was you who started a tangential, inconsequential, subjective argument utterly unrelated to the point I was trying to make, and frankly, I find it annoying.

So if I act annoyed, it's because I am, because you are wasting my time. If you can prove that 0.2 is not significant, please do so; I maintain that it is, and simple mathematics proves it as shown above. MY point was, for the sixth time now, to demonstrate that the performance of the two cars was COMPARABLE, and I believe that I have established this quite conclusively.

As it now stands, this is nothing more than a subjective argument over semantics, and I've got better things to do.

Originally Posted by MerzadY_BoY

why are you even speaking.. You drive a 2001 CLK. You shouldn't even have privledge to talk to someone that drives an AM. :v

Originally Posted by MerzadY_BoY

yeah but im not talking **** to a man who can buy an AM, nor am i arguing that my car is better than his so boo hoo

Originally Posted by MerzadY_BoY

why are you even speaking.. You drive a 2001 CLK. You shouldn't even have privledge to talk to someone that drives an AM.

Originally Posted by MerzadY_BoY

I love Chemistry and Physics

Lets all change the subject to Chemistry

LETs all start a debate on Einstiens Theory of Relativity.
E=mc^2
The change in energy= the change in mass*the velocity of light squared in units of eV (electron Volts)

Convert 345eV to MeV

Originally Posted by MerzadY_BoY

why are you even speaking.. You drive a 2001 CLK. You shouldn't even have privledge to talk to someone that drives an AM. :v