Originally Posted by MJ1133

I never said I didnt believe the C32 or C55 was faster then the M3, I was just trying to end the arguement above.

Originally Posted by NOTKTS

Damn MJ, I see the M is back to it's old dirtyself. Parkin'-lot Pimpin'

Originally Posted by MJ1133

I never said I didnt believe the C32 or C55 was faster then the M3, I was just trying to end the arguement above.

Originally Posted by BiTurboV12 AMG

This topic is just getting stupid lets just end it and everyone walk away. here are the facts the C32 is modded and in a race will beat an M3 no doubt. another fact is as soon as the M3 got close tot he C32 the C32 driver floored his car without letting the M3 driver lineup or have any notice, so it wasnt a fair race. i am sure if you have an M3 and wait for an E55 to creep up next to you expecting you to line up with him and race like normal street racer do but if your the M3 driver and just floor it without giving the E55 driver warning i bet the E55 wont catch up till way after 100mph. It takes a lot of power for a car to catch a car that has a at minimum 1/2second jump.

So can we all end this? i have no doubt you beat the M3 in an unfair race. your story reminds me of a ricer flyby.

Originally Posted by anerbe

this is getting too off topic -

insulting and condescending are two different things. I never claimed the first.
also, it seems you thrive on internet debates. there's obviously no winning on this, considering you have multiple debates you like to keep on the same post.

Originally Posted by anerbe

i'm tired of saying this, but once again, read my post more carefully. I never claimed F=MA as "theoretical". The assumption that the car will be faster by removing weight is theoretical.

Originally Posted by anerbe

as for powershifting - keeping the right foot down is the easy part - speed of clutch actuation and shifting is another.

Originally Posted by anerbe

so, you're as fast as anybody else when it comes to shifting. think you are?

Originally Posted by anerbe

why don't you look up mario andretti's shift abilities (much faster than SMG). i'm sure you can duplicate those..... faster shifting will allow you to get your car closer to redline before shifting. a slow shift will result in bouncing off the limiter. most compensate by shifting at a lower rpm, or end up slowing down by bouncing on the limiter. but obviously you have a natural ability to shift at incredible speeds. I also assume you're a professional driver then. Win any races this year? ....

Originally Posted by anerbe

lastly, your 'proof' of him having drag tires is a result of him doing a burnout and 'digitally enhanced' (or should i call them pixelated)

Originally Posted by anerbe

pictures of his wheels is not concrete evidence.

Originally Posted by anerbe

I call concrete either an eye witness, or a tech sheet of his drag tires. It's all speculation. You assume based off the facts. Others can disprove you - you have no closeup of the sidewall, or the tread of the tire. Your assumptions would never hold up in court.

Originally Posted by anerbe

You have yet to prove to me anything.

Originally Posted by MJ1133

http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=67620

5 12.727 @ 107.42 MPH Lee (Mathews) E46 M3 Bone stock 60': 1.796 Fuel: Pump Rubber: Stock radials: Raceweight: ?

Originally Posted by Improviz

I am aware that RUtter claims that he was bone stock. Unfortunately, a timeslip proves nothing. I can post a pretty timeslip for you, and claim I ran the time, but guess what? Doesn't prove anything.

Get real.

Originally Posted by MJ1133

Get over it, an M3 can run in the 12's.

Originally Posted by anerbe

you're hilarious sir - your personal attacks suggest I hit a soft spot. I only see people act this way when disproven. I understand you feel vulnerable right now. That's ok. I'm not here to bash you. I have no hard feelings against you, even after your last rediculous post. Just trying to clarify that your points/claims/so called "facts" are not end-all. You concluded that M3's in no way run 12's. Stick to your guns!

Originally Posted by anerbe

Your lotus elise - weight is definitely lighter (points for you ), but the traction is also greater than a celica. Why don't you put 175/60 tires with comfort tread on it.

Originally Posted by anerbe

I never said reducing weight will not result in faster times. I stated that it's one part of the formula. Most of the time, lighter = faster, but it's not always a direct correlation.

Originally Posted by anerbe

Also, weight has a much less issue at higher speeds.

Originally Posted by anerbe

Lighter may mean 'quicker' but not 'faster'. An M3 (with identical 1/4 miles times as a Lotus Elise according to MT mag) will pull hard on the Lotus past 100.

Originally Posted by anerbe

Another case where lighter does not necessarily mean faster.

Originally Posted by anerbe

There's a lot more in this world than F=MA.

Originally Posted by anerbe

haha, your powershifting reasoning is hilarious. speed of shift and clutch actuation have no bearing on how effective a powershift is?

Originally Posted by anerbe

Just keeping the gas planted? :p So just cause you keep the gas planted, you will perform a powershift as effective as the next guy, no matter how you treat the shift? good luck. i brought your driving skill into this, cause you like to bring mine into the thread.

Originally Posted by anerbe

you bet $1000 you're better racer than me, yet your next comment asks me to not bring your driving abilities up? I don't like to drag race people who have been doing it longer than I've been alive.

Originally Posted by anerbe

haha, digitally enhanced could also mean digitally zoomed in. Do you have a digital camera? When the camera zooms past it's mechanical ability, the camera zooms in by digitally enhancing the picture, but with less quality.

Originally Posted by anerbe

All we have are claims.

Originally Posted by anerbe

There's a lot more in this world than F=MA.

Originally Posted by Improviz

No, my personal attacks are because I don't appreciate your personal attacks, namely your blatant false claim that I had somehow modified the photos of Rutter's video. And yes, I found this annoying, *and* insulting, and still do, because it is a lie. Which makes you a liar. Those scans were taken directly from the video, and were not modified in any way.



I'm beginning to think you really are brain-dead, or are simply being obstinate because you know you're wrong and are too stubborn to admit it. So you think that the tires, and the tires alone, are what makes an Elise faster, eh? Weight has nothing to do with it?

And you ignored the S55 vs. E55 vs. CLK55, of course, because it doesn't support your argument...typical.

And then, after implying that the Celica's tires have a larger effect than the Elise's lighter weight:



Bull****. Unless you can establish that the traction coefficient in a car 400 pounds lighter is enough to offset its higher weight gain, then I maintain your claim is bull****.

The traction coefficient will not vary by a huge percentage as a result of the lighter weight, certainly not enough to offset the weight savings.



More bull****. Force = mass*acceleration holds at all speeds, up to and including the speed of light. The fact that aerodynamic drag is higher at higher speeds in no way means that mass is less important. For a supposed ME, you honestly seem quite ignorant of the principles involved in the acceleration of a vehicle.



Yes, because its engine develops nearly double the FORCE, and as aerodynamic drag increases, it takes more FORCE to offset the higher negative component in the FORCE vector introduced by the higher drag. But this is independent of mass, as I'm sure a bright ME like yourself knows.

You are aware that force is a vector, with both negative and positive components, and that the drag force is negative and increases with the square of velocity, right? Because it sure doesn't seem like it given what you're trying to argue here.



Another false analogy. You're introducing a new variable, drag, into the equation at higher speeds, and this proves nothing about lighter weight/lower mass.

Here's some education for you:

The key difference here is "difference in total power", not weight. You are trying to show the effects of varying *one* quantity, mass, by varying *two* quantities here, mass and force. But a result obtained by varying two quantities cannot be interpreted as being caused only by the variation of one quantity. Since two vehicles of the same mass, frontal areas, gearing, wheels, etc. will produce the same force at the wheels at any given velocity, the thing which will determine acceleration at high speeds (or low speeds) is how much force there is to push the vehicle forward minus how much force there is resisting its forward movement, divided by its mass of course. Drag force does increase with velocity, but this is independent of mass.

If you want to see how mass *only* affects a vehicle's acceleration, you must vary *only* mass. So let's use the hypothetical Benz case again, except in this case rather than calculating a bunch of engine stuff, I'll simply keep engine force constant and vary mass. In this way the direct effects of varying mass with respect to high velocity acceleration in air can be determined. I will use the same calculated drag forces for the C32 from before at 100, 130, and 150 mph.

So let's say that Car A has mass of 2000 kg, Car B has mass of 4000 kg, and Car C has 6000 kg. All other things are equal. Drag forces were calculated previously at 741N at 100 mph, 1253N at 130 mph, and 1781N at 155 mph. Let us further assume for simplicity's sake that these vehicles produce 6000N at the wheels at 100, 5000N at 130, and 4000N at 150, although using the following equations you can simply plug and chug for any values you like; the end results will be the same provided the wheel forces are equal. I will also not be computing the rolling resistance as I am pressed for time, but bear in mind that with the heavier cars as I have shown it will be significantly higher, thus slowing them down even more at higher speeds.

Acceleration at 100 mph:
a(Car A) = (6000N - 741N)/2000kg = 2.63 m/s^2
a(Car B) = (6000N - 741N)/4000kg = 1.31 m/s^2
a(Car C) = (6000N - 741N)/6000kg = 0.88 m/s^2

Acceleration at 130 mph:
a(Car A) = (5000N - 1253N)/2000kg = 1.87 m/s^2
a(Car B) = (5000N - 1253N)/4000kg = 0.94 m/s^2
a(Car C) = (5000N - 1253N)/6000kg = 0.62 m/s^2

Acceleration at 150 mph:
a(Car A) = (4000N - 1781N)/2000kg = 1.14 m/s^2
a(Car B) = (4000N - 1781N)/4000kg = 0.57 m/s^2
a(Car C) = (4000N - 1781N)/6000kg = 0.38 m/s^2

As can be clearly seen: by varying *only* mass, acceleration is still the fastest in the car with the highest force-to-mass ratio. All other things being equal, this will be true at all velocities.

Also note that the relationships of the three accelerations does not vary; at 100 mph, Car B is accelerating at ~50% the rate of Car A, and Car C is accelerating at ~50% the rate of Car B and ~33% the rate of car A. This relationship holds true at both 130 mph and 150 mph, and would hold true at 100,000 mph.

Therefore, mass is shown to be equally important to acceleration at all speeds, all other factors being equal, as acceleration is inversely proportional to mass per Newton's second law.



As shown above, it holds. If you have something to disprove the calculations, present it. Otherwise, give it up; you're wrong.



Again: the definition of powershifting is executing a shift without lifting the throttle. You're confusing powershifting with speed-shifting.



No, you brought it in as a red herring. Again, I point out that you the definition of "powershifting" means ONLY shifting with the gas planted. You're talking about speed-shifting AND powershifting. SPEED shifting is shifting at a high rate of speed. POWERSHIFTING is done with the foot flat on the floor.



So come to Texas and let's do it. My car's an auto, your car's a manual, right? So we'll each do five runs in your car. I'll bet you a grand a race I'm faster, because I'm pretty convinced that you're all talk and have never been to a strip, given that you're idiotic enough to believe that someone can hit a 1.7 60' time in a car with a performance suspension, 333 horsepower, and 255 Continentals on the back.



Bull****. You were clearly trying to imply that I'd modified the photos to make it look as though his car was modified, probably because you stupidly hadn't watched the video before making your bull**** claim. I again invite anyone who believes otherwise to watch the video.



No, that's not all we have. We have dozens of magazine tests from all over the world, including acceleration tests performed by world-record holding drivers like Horst Von Saurma, and yet they fail to match the great Lee Rutter...tell me, what championships has Rutter won? What records does he hold? Why should I believe that he, alone, can do what all of these other highly-skilled drivers cannot manage to replicate?

And on top of this, we also have Rutter making claims that when he ran that 12.7 second video, the only mods he had on his car were pulleys, when it shows that lightweight wheels were added, AND that the front seat and rear seats were removed, and who knows what else....but the point is that he lied; he DID NOT honestly and accurately report the modifications to his vehicle.

And therefore, his credibility is suspect.

Now, as I said before: if you want to believe that, despite what he wrote in his own words versus what the video he provided plainly shows, he is the most honest man on the face of the planet, in addition to being more talented than any test driver who has yet run a stock M3, then fine: to me, this shows extreme gullibility and credulity which is not warranted by the facts.

And you clearly do not like the facts, which are again that HE posted a video, and when asked point-blank what his mods were when he ran the video, he lied.

The burden of proof is not on me, it is on him. And he has not proven that he ran this time in a stock M3, any more than my claiming I ran the time in a stock CLK55 would be "proof", even if I had a couple of beer buddies swear that I did it. If this constitutes an ironclad standard of proof, then UFOs DO exist, people HAVE been abducted and probed by aliens, Elvis IS alive, and the Rev. Sun Myong Moon IS the Messiah.

And dragtimes.com proves it? I mean, please...I can go out, find a slip, post it and claim I ran it in my car, and this proves....drumroll please...absolutely nothing! Timeslips are slips with times on them. They do not identify the vehicle which ran them. They do not identify the state of tune of the vehicle which ran them. They show only that, at some point, some vehicle ran the time on the slip. And so they prove only that, at some point, some vehicle ran the time. And for an extraordinary claim like this, particularly a 1.7' 60' time, I believe that more evidence is needed, particularly given the false claim of only a pulley mod when other mods were plainly visible.

Oh, and now after accusing me of modding photos, you offer an olive branch? Whatever...apologizing for the claim would be a nice start.

Originally Posted by Vomit

This I would agree with. The key word being "can." I have little doubt that an excellent driver, under ideal conditions, can break into the twelves with a stock E46. The same applies to a stock C32 or C55.

Now, if you add just one more word after the "can" so that it reads "can easily run in the 12s," then you are a mindless, nutless, souless, heartless, BMW-pimp ******. And, to be fair, anyone who claims that a stock C32 or 55 "easily" runs in the 12s is the same thing (sub MBZ-pimp for BMW pimp).

That said, the simple reality is that STOCK E46s, C32s, and C55s, with average drivers and average conditions, are mid-13 second vehicles. The average modded C32 is a high-12 second vehicle. That 1/2 second of difference explains the 4-5 carlengths from 40-100 MPH. End of story.

Once again, I would be happy to duplicate it for any doubters. This is now the fourth? time that I have made this offer, with no takers????

Originally Posted by reggid

I believe the reason so many people have the misconception of the effect of mass at speed is that they see that hp/weight will mean two cars have approximately similar performace at "normal" speeds but at higher speeds the heavier car often edges away and think thats its the mass becoming less important, and not the fact that the heavier car having a better Net power /weight. As you know this is the reason why a 100hp 1000lb car will be slower than a 400hp 4000lb car in the end, most people just don't get it so they offer the wrong conclusions as its simpler for them to understand.

Originally Posted by reggid

There isn't if you want to determine the acceleration of something! Its just the Force and mass terms are not as straight forward to determine as people will have you believe, but the equation will still hold.

Originally Posted by anerbe

i never said the equation will not hold - it's never just a direct correlation. if all else remains equal, including drag, traction, etc....of course! but other factors that affect acceleration happen in the real world, including traction.

Originally Posted by anerbe

reggid, your general ideas are right, but what makes the cars different are the Net Power/Drag ratio. The 100hp/1000lb and 400hp/4000lb cars have the same power/weight, but the 400hp car will have a better power/drag ratio thus pulling top end given similar drag between the two cars. accerlation has to do with power/weight as well as power/drag at higher speeds. power/drag has insignificant affect to about 70mph, but will soon swap where differences in drag have a greater affect than mass. Mass is directly proportional to acceleration (1:1) no matter the speed, while Fd is exponentially proportional to acceleration (equation has speed^2). Doubling the speed will quadruple the Fd. this is why a car that is drag limited to 200mph will require @ 70 more lb/ft to add 10 mph top speed, with given constants. Take off 70 lbs from the car will not add 10 mph to this car.

Originally Posted by anerbe

hey, improviz, lighten up (literally and figuratively )

your long ramble about weight's affect on acceleration (and drag) sway so far from the original topic, it's crazy.

Originally Posted by anerbe

all your numbers are great, talking about one car with everything else known and constant except weight. if this is the case, you're 100% correct. but who's debating one car being lightened with all else the same? comparing cars (like this thread originally stated) does not follow your "plug and chug" skills. I simply stated that in comparing cars weight does not affect the outcome nearly as much as drag.

Originally Posted by anerbe

Your numbers are plain rediculous. You're comparing the same exact car with the same exact power, but with weight varying by the ton. i can compare a car by varying it by a few pounds but attach a large flat wall to the front for one value. I assure you drag will have a much greater affect. you can fudge numbers however you want to prove a point. congrats.

Originally Posted by anerbe

speed shifting is part of powershifting.

Originally Posted by anerbe

Lee gets great times cause when he powershifts, he has GREAT SPEEDSHIFTING abilities. anybody else would also understand this statement, which means the same - lee has great powershifting abilities. great. happy? For Christ sake, I hope so.

Originally Posted by anerbe

You're like a woman - I explained what I meant by digitally enhanced. If you want to keep pissed that I meant something else, then go for it. I have to explain what I say enough to my girl when she misunderstands. I'd hate to do it to a second person.

Originally Posted by anerbe

regarding your p3nis size match, i mean your drag race bet, i'd rather not. I'm into the road track thing. I always thought that the m3 isn't the ideal drag car, thus haven't practiced on the dragway. i still stand by my offer, if you want to fly me out and pay me if i hit 1.7, please do so. I can do it during a weekend in Jan. when it's really cold here. I'd rather not pay, cause it would be a test of my driving abilities, not the car's full potential. I never said i was great at drag racing. Obviously you are a superior driver..............but you don't have a 10' ******* like me. Oh internet feuds......I must say you look like a greek god on this forum.

Originally Posted by anerbe

Mass is directly proportional to acceleration (1:1) no matter the speed

Originally Posted by Erik

Anyway, I chose to belive this is possible, until I see proof otherwise. Not just speculations and guesses.

Originally Posted by Improviz

So what else is new? If someone were here arguing that they'd driven an M3 up the Empire State Building, you'd be in the thread defending them.