SPLN SUX

Couple things... It only runs to 190, not 200... yea... "only" 190 Wheres 6th gear? Is the gearing on those THAT TALL? 60mph in 1st gear Traction control is off.... 1st gear.... 505hp/500lb-ft.... no wheel spin :bs:

so should we be pissed off at GE, Rolls Royce, Skunkworks, and MIT for putting together planes that destroied everything? I mean, they made an enormous amount of money compared to Dick the fuck Chaney, and they even got to blow some shit up doing it. I mean, im sure Honda had there hands in there somewhere too... generators or something... Point is, GE and Honda both have plants in and around Columbus, giving the people we see everyday walking down the street something productive to do. And what is it that they do with all thier hard earned money? Buy gas at 3 bucks a gallon, eat fast food, wear over priced clothing from Easton and City Center malls, watch movies at theatres like the one next to my place. Its not like Chaney made money and everyone else got screwed... other people made money too... maybe not in one big chunk, but it rolls in over time.

"Its your fuel map, its got a nasty hole..... youre unloading in 3rd." "Told you it was third..."

what the hell is that sound at about 10sec in? Watch the wideband when you hear that... jumps to about 14 then dips back down.

this is true, but even boosted engines lose power at altitude... ask the guys that run up pikes peak FYI - I did once, and they lose somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of thier horsepower from bottom to top... i think they mentioned it on an episode of Monster Garage too

Prop speed isnt always important... its the speed @ pitch. You can run a shallow pitch prop and run a 10,000 rpm and make the same thrust as a a deep pitched prop at half the rpm. Like a boat, the as long as the engine is turning the prop, its under load and using torque to counter-act the forces of wind resistance. Many of the old WW2 planes used Jaguar V10 and V12 engines... they dont have to turn tons of RPM, just have enough power to spin a deep pitched prop. I would think a boosted LS1 would work quiet well. Being under constant load, it would always be in boost and make all the power and torque you could ever need for a tiny ass little plane like that. I wouldnt be surprised if they made it for racing purposes only.

Well, not exactly. If i remember correctly.... from my college physics class, a rail gun isnt really a weapon at all. I believe it was originaly designed to propel a pod or spacecraft to a spectacular rate of speed for deep space travel. The idea for the rail gun was based on the intentional polarization of several banks of magnets eranged in a tube like structure. The craft was some how propeled forward by the controled polarization of the magnets in succession with eachother to force the craft away from its magnetic opposite at the force of the magnitude of difference of polarity... easy rigth? EDIT... found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

i need a towel.

I think the point is cyclic rate, not capacity. To be able to fire hundreds or thousands of rounds before the first bullet ever hits target is pretty devistating. The rounds are so close together, that the penatrating power is almost unbelievible. Its like shooting a shot gun, but all the shot (in this case 180) are of a massive caliber and at such a high rate of velocity and penatrating power, is almost unstoppable with any armor.

what would drive someone to create that? It would be funny to see go down the street though

I was always very fond of physics. I took both law and theory in highschool as well as AP Comprehensive... then took two semesters in college... most of which had more to do with static discharge and behavior of stimulated matter (it was for electroncis engineeing). I was never any good at spelling though The basic theory here goes back to the equation for Force: Force = Mass x Acceleration In this case, your force is going to be engine output. The mass is going to be the total rotational mass of the drive train, and the acceleration is going to be the inverse of the total static load factor. If your engine makes 200bhp/200lb-ft on a brake dyno, then that doesnt change... so its a constant. Thus, if you know that Mass and Acceleration are inversely related in that equation, meaning if one increases, the other must decrease in order to keep the equation true, if you decrease the mass or the entire drive system, the acceleration will in fact yield a higher figure. Example: 200 = 100lbs x Acceleration -- static load factor of .5 200 = 50lbs x Acceleration -- static load factor of .25 So what does this mean? Well what it means is, the percentage of effective mass you remove from the initial system, is the percentage decrease in the static load factor. Meaning, the percentage of decrease in the static load factor, is the percentage of increase in acceleration when multiplied by the load factor itself. So, if you can manage to remove 50%the effective mass of the drive line, you can increase your accleration by as much as 25%. If you remove 25%, as much as 12.5%. Of course, this is all relative to the inital factor... and every car is different. I really dont know any other way to explain it... theres too much involved for me to know how to explain it any better. Ive always been a bit of a smart ass too... ask my mom

i hope my Z24 sounds like the part on the video screen when he flys up the building A ton of build up and then sick pull in top gear :burn:

+1

:jerkit: WTF was smartass? I stated fact. Of course a 600hp SLK is going to out accelerate an Enzo... but an Enzo was designed for the racetrack, not the drag strip. How many drag cars do you know that have the rear suspension bolted directly to the engine and trasmission? Z-E-R-O Props to the SLK for taking the win in the strait line... its not easy to out accelerate a car with a carbon fiber/kevlar body and chassis, but the Enzo is still a complete piece of artwork on wheels. Its ugly as sin, but its fast as fuck.

the cars in the 80s may have sucked... but the advertising was top notch

roflcopter

Enzo would OWN IT TO SHIT around a track though. Solid suspension mounts FTW.

Child support: version CR.r0xX3r You pay child support for the amount of time allowed to you by the courts to have the child. Meaning, if you are only allowed to see your child(ren) one day a week, then you are required to pay support for that alocated amount of time and that time ONLY. So what you do is figure the cost of care of a child of specific age groups for one years time. Take that figure, and divide it by 12. Take that figure and divide it by 30.41 (the average number of days in a month over a calender year of 365 days). Now, the number of days in one month you see your child(ren)(in this example 1 day/wk = 4 days/ mnth), and multiply. Lets say it costs (i have no idea what it costs, this is just a number to use) $10,000/yr to care for a child age 3-5. $10,000/12mnths = $833.33/mnth $833.33/30.41 days = $27.40/day 4 days/mnth x $27.40 = $109.60/mnth Now, will good fathers who are doing well for themselves going to stick to that... probably not, theyll go beyond that as deep as they can reach into thier pockets. However, the point behind a system like this, would keep mothers from abusing the child support system while depriving the rights of fathers to see thier child(ren). If the mother only wants to allow the father one day a week, then she is to support the child for the other 6 days. If the mother wants her way, she pays in cash, while the father pays in anxiety and frustration. My parents split when i was only 5, and i know my dad had a hell of a time paying support for myself and my two sisters. We only saw him once a week, and it really made it hard for him. The shit part is, it made it really hard on us kids too. Now that were all grown up, 21, 23, and 25, our relationship with our dad is jack shit to what it coulda been. I made special attempts once i turned 16 to build a stronger relationship with my dad, but by thenthe damage had already been done. We had grown up, and he had no idea who we were anymore. My dad couldnt tell you what kind of music i listen to, what my favorite color is, or the names of any of my past girlfriends. The only thing he knows, is the first 5yrs, and the past 7yrs. Point is, its not only the fathers going through the crap, the kids are too but not untill later in life when they realize what theyve missed.

this is cooler http://videos.streetfire.net/video/68CE9E87-4971-42CE-A2ED-B37ABAF62826.htm N/M, found it.

Yes... 2002 Civic Si on stock wheels 138.2bhp....same car on Rota Slipstreams, 146.1bhp. Even a lil itty bitty civic sees it. I dont remember the torque figure off the top of my head sorry, but i think the gain was like 1.4 or something equaly insignificant. Granted, these wheels were the same size... a smaller wheel would have yeilded even greater change. If i was to change from a 16x7.5 to a 15x7... thats also lighter... theres no question its going to effect the power the engine makes. Not only are you removing rotational mass from the system, like a pully, or flywheel, but your alos changing the over all gear ration from the crank to the ground, unless you use a taller tire to compensate for the change in diameter of the wheel... then that aspect is uneffected. It also matters where the weight is distributed. A disc has less effective rotational mass, or rotational inertia, than a ring. Meaning: If you had a wooden disc and a wooden ring that had identical mass, and you placed them on edge at the top of a ramp... if you released them from the same level of the ramp and at the same time, the disc would out accelerate the ring severely... which is why i think the Outlaw/2 wheels are so popular with the old muscle cars that are "track prepped". Its a way to reduce rotational inertia without giving up wheel size and often width. Julius Summner Miller FTW EDIT: Numbers mixed up.... Before - 136.2, After - 138.1... my bad, its been a while lol.

video is a no go.

:jerkit: glad weve all finally discovered the effects of ratational mass.

you shoulda been wearing a Hauns device Mowery's Collision 151 Phillipi Rd 274-6072 They did all the work to my Volvo... always looks fantastic.

960.41

wow thats even worse than me trying to do the macarana