Considering how badly my car beats CLK55s, it's laughable. It's also laughable that you think your car can hang with one, but that's you in a nutshell: even when there's well over 100 hp and tq difference between the two cars, you think you can hang.

Yes, please, let's have the M3 guy show up here and tell his side of the story, along with some pics of his car. And we can certainly arrange for you to run one and "draft" him.

Honestly, it was that story that made me realize just how much of a bull*****ter you are; if you had any inkling of how ridiculous that story is from pure physics, you'd understand why.

Here's why: the drag force on an automobile increases with the square of its velocity. So, if it's going 100 mph, the drag force is 100 times higher than it is at 10 mph. Down low, there wouldn't be enough of it for you to compensate for the huge horsepower difference between the two cars, and even if by some miracle you managed to keep up, as soon as you whipped out from behind him to pass, you'd instantly be out of his air pocket and hit with the full drag force, which would, given the huge horsepower difference, cause you to fall behind faster than Paris Hilton in a Calculus class (or you in a Physics class ).

Similarly, there is simply no way, no how, that your car is capable of running from 5-60 with a vehicle that puts out that much more power and torque than yours, has heavier weight and larger tires, which give it more traction.

But let's make this interesting. I'm confident enough that your vehicle will not do this that I'm willing to put money on it. So how about this: we'll arrange for someone with a VBox to meet up with you, and time your 5-60 runs.

You will do ten runs.

I pay you $250 a run for each run you beat a similarly timed CLS55 or E55.

You pay me $500 for each one you lose.

Both cars to be on street tires, tires inflated to factory spec, just as were mounted on the CLK55 in the test you're citing.

That's 2:1 odds, which given you're so damn sure of yourself, you should be willing to grant in a heart beat, as it's basically $2500 free and clear to you, if you can do it.

So how 'bout it, Jon? Willing to take that bet? Given that you "know" your car WILL do it, regardless of all of the other factors that give a 209 an advantage in this department, I'd think you'll man up--for a change.

 

Oh please enough of your mumbo jumbo! You do like mag #s right? So the 5-60 roll for the Clk55 and the cls55 is around 4.6sec. Geez just admit dude

 

There you go again, wussing out.

So I take it then that you're in full keyboard warrior mode again, all talk, no action.

Take the bet, Jon. Put your money where your ever-running mouth is for once. Because from where I sit, you're nothing but talk.

 

Geez I have to type this for him again. THE BEST MAG TIME 5-60roll FOR THE CLK55 and the CLS55 IS AROUND 4.6SEC Not a 5-300mph!

 

Geez, I have to remind you again that YOU said that YOU, in YOUR car, can match the 5-60 speed in that article.

So for about the tenth time now, I'm challenging you to DO IT, and put some MONEY where your little TRASH-TALKING MOUTH is.

Of course, you won't do it, because as overwhelmingly proven by your past refusal to show up and run a guy who has a car that weighs the same as your car and has the same engine, let alone run a 55k car from any speed to any speed, you're nothing but a squeaky little chicken.

 

Like I said before when the weather gets better and I put on new tires I will put it on video. You must love chickens

 

Apart from everybody who runs more than their mouth.

 

Let this stupid thread die.

E55s/cls/cl any AMG K cars are slow

they dont need LSD to get better 60fts

and the NA MB cars are faster than boosted V8s

wow this thread sux ***

 

I'm sure you'd like that.

Regarding first part of your crap since I already answered it and it also backed up my statement. And multiple sources also had errors in them too. Btw, more consistent does not equal quickest possible. There is physics for you. There is more though...

You forgot powerband and gearing
Which hurt it if there is no issue with traction
And if it does break (both) tires loose, and requires throttle modulation and his doesn't spin whatsoever, that can change things too.

 

Do you really want him to write back?

 

You backed up nothing. You've been lying, spinning, and obfuscating since this thread started, and again I invite people to read how you purposefully edited a piece to make it seem as though it backed up your point, when in fact it was grossly out of context, and the article in question clearly stated that LSDs are superior to open diffs.

I didn't say "quickest possible", I said how is it possible for 1/4 mile ETs to be more consistent, to use YOUR term, without a net improvement?

As usual, you dodge, this time by raising yet another straw man, instead of actually asking the question that was asked.

Answer the question. How is it possible to make ETs MORE CONSISTENT without improving the average?

Also, let's examine what you wrote, in response to my asking you what "benefit" an LSD provides:
OK, so if the consistency you achieve with an LSD allows you to achieve the optimal launch/60ft, then why wouldn't the time be the quickest?

Or are you seriously dumb enough to try and argue at this point that it actually makes ETs worse?

And if it's more reliable in delivering this optimal launch/60ft, then why do you keep arguing with skratch77 that it's impossible that the LSD on the other car made the difference?

Do you really think anyone's dumb enough to believe this crap you're attempting to shovel?

Perhaps you'd care to take that bet, then. You think a CLK55 will hang with a CLS55 from 5-60 in stock form?

There is an issue with traction when you put well over 500 lb-ft down on street tires, but you obviously aren't intelligent enough to realize it.

So I repeat: would you like to get in on the bet, since you seem to regard Jon as credible? I'll be more than happy to honor the same bet with you, since your whole purpose here seems to be some sort of bizarre jihad to convince all that an open diff is equally as good as an LSD, even though you yourself have written that it isn't.

 

Are you going to take that bet, little girl?

 

Deuuuce, you claim to have been honest when you edited the quote from the book about indycar racing, and I'd like to discuss this in some more detail.
That's a lie. Let's examine this again, as you seem to be trying to waste space here by generating some distance between it and the latest posts, so here I'll present it in its entirety.

You wrote the following, quoting a book:
Here is the page from the book you quoted which contains the sentences you quoted in their entirety, with the section you omitted via the ellipsis included, along with the sentence that immediately follows it, which you omitted and which is most illustrative:
So you omit all of the sections showing that it helps, obviously to give a false impression that the article stated that LSDs are not beneficial, which is why indycar drivers use them.

The only problem is that:
1) the preceeding paragraph in the article, which you did not quote, discusses how open diffs are poor for racing because they have traction issues;
2) the portions of the two sentences you omitted hurts your case;
3) the portions you glued together to form one sentence are from two different sentences.

No matter how you slice it, that's extremely dishonest, and absolutely taken out of the context of the original article.

Now, your response was this:
In the first place, the "alleged" misquote, which clearly IS a misquote when you read the above, was originally cited BY YOU. So now you're going to try and say that by simply pointing out your deceptive citation of the article, that I'm guilty of using an article that YOU first used to illustrate something?

Pathetic.

As to your statement that you avoided using the part because it contains the term "spool", this too is a lie. The part you cut out of the middle of the sentence doesn't contain the word spool.

Here's the sentence as you typed it:
Here's the two sentences you spliced together as they were actually written:
Now, let's consider the context here: you're trying, desparately, to establish that LSDs aren't all they're cracked up to be, and were mining the web for data. You came across that quote, and instead of honestly quoting the article to make clear that indy drivers ONLY use LSDs on long, high speed ovals where wheelspin isn't an issue, you edit that extremely relevant information out, and splice portions of two sentences together to make it appear that some indy drivers use an open differential for ALL races.

Without that information contained, anyone who read that and didn't catch the ellipsis you used would certainly have gotten this impression. And you, who constructed the spliced sentence, would certainly have known that when you did it.

Now, if you have another explanation, let's hear it. Why did you feel it important that anyone reading the material you cited NOT be aware of the fact that:
a) these indy drivers only use the open diffs only on long ovals,
b) they only do it on long ovals because wheelspin is not an issue on those tracks at those speeds.

How would anyone reading that quote be better served or informed by NOT having access to that very pertinant information?

Clearly, they wouldn't.

But YOU would clearly be better served by their not knowing, which was clearly your intent.

So please, stop lying about your intention here. It is as clear as glass. You lied, and you got nailed. There is simply no good reason to omit the portion of the text you omitted.

But wait, there's more: here is the section of the text in the book immediately preceeding the section that you quoted and spliced:
Also, the section immediately *after* the two sentences you spliced together to form one is illuminating:
So if we read those sections and read the section you quoted in its entirety, we see that:
a) open diffs suck for racing because they have wheelspin issues;
b) however, some indy car drivers do use them for racing, but only on high speed ovals where wheelspin doesn't become a problem;
c) on other tracks, where wheelspin WILL become a problem with an open diff, drivers will either use a spool, or some other form of limited slip differential.

If we read your sentence splice we would get the impression that some indy car drivers use open diffs all the time, period.

By any measure, it is clear that your intent here was not to inform people, but to deceive them. There is simply no good reason to have omitted the portions you omitted other than to hide the fact that SOME indy car racers use open diffs, but ONLY under certain circumstances where wheelspin, the very phenomenon that LSDs are designed to eliminate, is NOT an issue, and that in ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, they DO use them.

Pathetic.

 

You're right, it's disturbing yet comical at the same time.

 

I'm sorry that you're upset that I've caught you in blatant examples of hypocrisy, inconsistencies, lies, twisting, spin, and evasiveness.

For example, my posting the following article here that you wrote elsewhere about it your considering it a "design flaw" that the new Mclaren doesn't have a limited slip differential
http://www.soakmag.com/soakworld/article.asp?c=Autos&t=Design+flaw+in+the+new+McLar en+MP4-12C%3F&aid=1154
Yes, I can imagine how my doing stuff like that must **** you off, given the amount of time you've spent arguing here that open diffs are equally as good as open diffs.

 

RESEARCH....it's a hell ova drug...

Many have challenged Improviz....many have lost...

 

....it was a sarcastic relpy, jon.... as we all can see just how *reliable* mag racing is (same mag, different stats) ...


BTW, good luck on the 5-60 runs vs improv or whatever 55k you happen to fall victim to.....

cheers..

 

Considering how he conveniently misses key words such as "capable", selectively quotes out of context, didn't know what a Spool Differential was, uses sources that are wrong or incorrect, throws out accusations of lying, and was clueless in the beginning about what a non-LSD car could do in a 60ft, one wonders if he's ever admitted when he's wrong.

 

deuce,what are are trying to get across here?do you think an lsd is worthless in the real world?

so in your opinion I should not got for the lsd?I have already spent about 2k going threw every high performance tire out there and settled to driving the car with drag radials everywhere.

 

I think an LSD is definitely worth it.

My point was simply that an Open Diff is capable of a good launch but not relaibly so. My article makes the argument in favor of the LSD. I was simply pointing out the finer points and not having one isn't ALWAYS detrimental.

Question for you - if you're on DRs daily driving, are they only helpful with low air pressure AND fully warmed up?

 

Not only didn't I miss it, I discussed why your hypothetical discussions of what an open diff could do under perfect circumstances on your hypothetically perfect, prepped, perfectly flat, debris-free track were silly when discussing a race run on the street or on an imperfect track, i.e. in the real world.

If one reads posts #363 and #365 (just above) in this thead, one can find where I documented you doing precisely what you're now falsely accusing me of.

Provide an example of my taking any quotes in this thread out of context, please.

Yet another lie. Please substantiate this false accusation. I pointed out that you had omitted a sentence stating that indy car drivers use spool diffs on short tracks, *after* you had edited portions of two different sentences together to create a false impression of what an article actually said. I did not define what a spool differential was, nor did I discuss its operation in any way. The point is it is NOT an open differential, and that you deliberately omitted the sentence discussing its use by indy car drivers on short tracks, because that its inclusion into your quote would have torpedoed the false impression you were trying to create with your little false editing exercise.

Oh, this is rich. Not only were many of the sources I used yours, including an article that you yourself had written, but I also busted you citing a source here that you had indicated you felt was unreliable (agreeing with another poster who stated that he felt the Chrysler engineers were saying whatever they felt made the car look better while downplaying its flaws). So here you are accusing me of using wrong/incorrect sources when you blatanly sourced a quote from the dodge charger forum that you yourself had discredited in that same forum.

Further, I provided examples of your providing sources that not only didn't support your argument, they actually undercut it, and for one of them you linked it with the phrase "no reduction", when the article in question didn't even CONTAIN the word reduction, made no mention of it, and actually stated explicitly that LSDs provide superior traction at a drag strip.

So, if any source I provided is incorrect, why not try doing what you haven't done so far: prove it. Despite repeated challenges to do so, you haven't even attempted it, only chanted "it's wrong because I say it is" or "it's true because I say it is" like one of Kipling's monkeys.

Documented and proven in post #363 and others. Documented by your own words, by quoting posts you'd written on the charger forum, as well as by quoting your own article.

Another lie. Please cite an example where I quantifiably stated what a non-LSD car could do in a 60 ft. I simply stated that LSDs provide superior traction, and this statement was supported by not only my "false sources", but also by sources you cited in the thread, along with the article you yourself had written, which is there in print a few posts up from this one.

Yes, I have, but there's this little thing you're missing: you have to prove I'm wrong, which so far, you haven't.

 

Again ignoring your broken record.....I'm guessing you're upset because you were also wrong about N/A cars having documented benefits from dyno tuning? Wasn't that you? You were wrong there too, right? Admit it?

Sources that were wrong or incorrect: Your first one that didn't reveal the 60fts they achieved and said you can't drift predictably with an open diff.
Another stated you only get a 1 wheel burnout with an Open Diff.
Another stated a Spool Differential is used to aid in handling.

In the real world open diff cars cut 60fts identical to what an LSD car can do all the time. See if you can answer these true/false questions. No expanding, no "yes buts". Either answer T/F or STFU.

1. An Open Diff car is capable of cutting an identical 60ft as an LSD car.
2. An Open Diff car can apply equal power to both wheels during a burnout.
3. A Spool Differential is an Open Differential design that is essentially locked, i.e. no transfering of power.
4. An LSD can negatively affect the ET by transferring power back and forth between the wheels during a pass at the dragstrip.

 

In other words, ignore the facts I presented along with incidents of your getting nailed...

Sorry, but you hardly proved any HP increase there. The Car & Driver article tested five different cars, and got no improvement on any of them. Given your track record in this thread, by no means will I hold up your (claimed) results as the pinnacle of proof while relegating Car & Driver to the cellar.

Excuse me? Just because they didn't *include* something hardly proves the article to be "incorrect"; neither Car & Driver, Road & Track, Motor Trend, nor any other contemporary auto mag of which I'm aware publishes their 60' times either, and that hardly proves that their articles are "incorrect" either. The article in question did show an improvement of about 0.3 seconds on the same car after installing an LSD, and that's that, and I produced two articles testing two different cars which showed the same benefit to adding an LSD.

As to drifting with an open diff, a) they didn't state that this was applicable to all cars, only that in THIS car they couldn't initiate reliable, controllable power slides (though there are plenty of sources that will document that drifting w/open diff is much more difficult, unreliable, and uncontrollable due to only one wheel spinning reliably, and b) it's pretty well known that the top players in the sport usually use lockers, not open diffs, just as the top drag racers use lockers or LSDs (depending upon class), so that's about all that needs to be said on that point. Read more about it at driftingstreet.com, where one of the first things they recommend is to add an LSD, or even a locker.
http://www.driftingstreet.com/drift-tuning-101.html

Hate to break this to you, but that was a source that *you* originally cited; I only cited it after you linked to it to show that it didn't agree with what you were arguing:
Here's what the source you cited says:
Another false claim in a long list. YOU cited the article.

Wow, two in a row. Firstly, this source was originally cited by you, not me, when you quoted the book contining it, and spliced the portions of two sentences together to create a doctored citation and attempt to create a false impression of what the text actually said, as I documented here. As to what it actually said, it said only that some indy car drivers use spool diffs on short oval tracks:
The material documenting this can be found here, along with a link to the post you quoted it in, and direct quotes from the text along with a link to it:
https://mbworld.org/forums/3874537-post363.html

Again: your source. You cited it.

Which means that, yet again, you get nailed doing exactly what you're falsely accusing me of doing, not once but twice. And it's pretty funny that in so doing, you basically undermined your own sources. Helpful hint: if you think sources are incorrect, try not citing them next time, just like you might try citing sources that actually support your argument instead of undermining it.

So that's 0/3 lame attempts. As to the Hot Rod article, which documented using physics that LSDs on solid axle cars develop more tractive force due to axle twist lowering the traction of one wheel, other than making factually incorrect claims of what the article said here, you've done nothing to discredit or undermine the article, nor to challenge the physics therein. You also incorrectly attributed the cause of rear wheel hop to axle twist, when in fact it's caused by a different phenomenon, documented here:
http://www.mc2racing.com/tech/20061012a/index.html

And they also do not, all of the time. I've documented you writing extensively that you think LSDs are superior to open diffs, including the article you wrote claiming that the new McLaren has "a design flaw" by virtue of its exclusion of an LSD in favor of an open diff, wherein you state that LSDs are better at drag strips. You also stated that LSDs provide optimal launches and more consistent times, yet have refused to answer how an LSD could possibly make times more consistent without making the ETs and 60' times better on average. Further, all three of the initial sources you cited as evidence supported the assertion that LSDs provide superior traction to open diffs in anything other than absolutely perfect conditions, as I documented here.

Sorry, but these questions are based upon false premises, namely that I've ever over the course of this thread argued what they're asking, so a bit of expansion is necessary to clarify and show how you're (yet again) using straw man techniques to falsely accuse me of claiming things I haven't claimed, and of writing things I haven't written.

I never said it couldn't, so this is yet another straw man argument. As I stated previously, it can, **if** there is absolutely identical traction between both wheels, and both got an even amount of spin on burnout (as opposed to the "one wheel drive" example in the article that you first cited but now disavow and falsely attribute to me), the surface doesn't suffer from irregularities, the car doesn't suffer from axle twist, on and on and on, then yes, it can. Unfortunately, in the real world this rarely happens, and as evidenced by both the article I provided, skratch77's experiences, and other sources, it very often doesn't.

Again, never stated otherwise, another strawman. To answer the question: same answer as above, with the added issue that the surface must be equally as slick or else one wheel will break traction before the other and you'll get the "one wheel drive" mentioned in the article that you first cited, but now claim as erroneous.

As I've stated twice now, despite your repeated raising of this red herring, I have never, once, over the course of this thread discussed the operation or design of a spool diff IN ANY WAY. The ONLY time I've mentioned it is by way of quoting from the article YOU cited, when you decided to introduce a discussion about indy car racing into a thread about drag racing. This text did state quite explictly that the differential is locked.

I don't know if you're reading a different thread from me in some bizarro universe, but in this one I've simply never claimed otherwise. Conversely, YOU claimed erroneously that a spool diff is a type of LSD, which it isn't. Judging by the question, you now seem to have discovered your error and are falsely trying to attribute it to me:

A spool is not a type of LSD. An LSD transfers power back and forth, an LSD does not. They are totally different in design and function. So to refer to a spool as an LSD is laughable.

The only documentation you've presented to support this is a quote from Chrysler engineers on the Charger forum. I will note that, here, you discussed the post where they claimed this, and agreed with another poster that this sounds dubious, and that engineers seem to write whatever makes the car look favorable:
So it would seem that YOUR answer to question 4) would be a resounding "False".

It would also seem that when you're writing elsewhere, you were pretty emphatic that an LSD is the way to go on street or strip, as I documented here, which really doesn't help your credibility.

And making stuff up about what I've written, falsely claiming that I was the source of citations that you yourself have made, and splicing separate sentences from an article which undermines you together to create a false impression of what the reference actually said won't help your credibility either.