Live fast, die young, leave a rattletrap corpse

On 7/8/2012 9:30 PM, gpsman wrote:
> [...] Bull**** is not data.[...]

To the contrary, it is data on what the bull ate.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On Jul 9, 3:46*am, Alan Baker > wrote:
> *gpsman > wrote:
>
> > Your premise that the automobile can run harder and faster and sustain
> > no or negligibly more wear is too stupid to qualify as wishful
> > thinking.
>
> That's not my premise.

Then what is it?
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Jul 9, 3:46*am, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > *gpsman > wrote:
> >
> > > Your premise that the automobile can run harder and faster and sustain
> > > no or negligibly more wear is too stupid to qualify as wishful
> > > thinking.
> >
> > That's not my premise.
>
> Then what is it?

That much of what that article claimed was exaggeration at best and
outright wrong at worst.

Accelerating hard doesn't cause suspension wear is just the most
egregious example.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Jul 9, 2:18*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *gpsman > wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 3:46*am, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > > *gpsman > wrote:
>
> > > > Your premise that the automobile can run harder and faster and sustain
> > > > no or negligibly more wear is too stupid to qualify as wishful
> > > > thinking.
>
> > > That's not my premise.
>
> > Then what is it?
>
> That much of what that article claimed was exaggeration at best and
> outright wrong at worst.

Red herring. Proof by assertion.

> Accelerating hard doesn't cause suspension wear is just the most
> egregious example.

Red herring, and ridiculous. More force = more wear. Accelerating
hard and driving faster wears out tires faster... for some odd reason.

If you can't feel the body twist under hard acceleration you have
cement for an ass and we're left with nothing but the Dunning–Kruger
effect.
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2:18*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *gpsman > wrote:
> > > On Jul 9, 3:46*am, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > > > *gpsman > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Your premise that the automobile can run harder and faster and sustain
> > > > > no or negligibly more wear is too stupid to qualify as wishful
> > > > > thinking.
> >
> > > > That's not my premise.
> >
> > > Then what is it?
> >
> > That much of what that article claimed was exaggeration at best and
> > outright wrong at worst.
>
> Red herring. Proof by assertion.
>
> > Accelerating hard doesn't cause suspension wear is just the most
> > egregious example.
>
> Red herring, and ridiculous. More force = more wear. Accelerating
> hard and driving faster wears out tires faster... for some odd reason.

Straw man: tires were not mentioned in the original article.

>
> If you can't feel the body twist under hard acceleration you have
> cement for an ass and we're left with nothing but the Dunning*Kruger
> effect.

LOL

As I've said already: you're a dick, but I'll still rebut.

Even if the body twists, the twisting forces caused by driveline torque
are orders of magnitude less than the twisting forces caused by hitting
bumps in the road and thus well, well within the design limits of the
vehicle.

And harking back a little bit to demonstrate more of your idiocy, if
dragsters actually did most often fail right off the line and that
demonstrates that initial hard acceleration is more of a factor than
high RPM...

....then why do Formula One cars not fail most often at the start rather
than as they actually do: well into the race if they fail at all. Those
cars perform maximum performance starts every race. It couldn't be
because--as I've pointed out--they're designed to endure the peak forces
of running at 18,000rpm for lap after lap for at least two races plus
all the qualifying and practice laps...

....could it?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Jul 9, 4:53*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> *gpsman > wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 2:18*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > > *gpsman > wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker > wrote:
>
> > > Accelerating hard doesn't cause suspension wear is just the most
> > > egregious example.
>
> > Red herring, and ridiculous. *More force = more wear. *Accelerating
> > hard and driving faster wears out tires faster... for some odd reason.
>
> Straw man: tires were not mentioned in the original article.

You poor *******, you have no idea what comprises a straw man.

Tire wear is indicative of the forces applied to them.

> > If you can't feel the body twist under hard acceleration you have
> > cement for an ass and we're left with nothing but the Dunning*Kruger
> > effect.
>
> LOL
>
> As I've said already: you're a dick, but I'll still rebut.

That would be refreshing for a change, but I'd get a second mortgage
to bet against it.

> Even if the body twists, the twisting forces caused by driveline torque
> are orders of magnitude less than the twisting forces caused by hitting
> bumps in the road and thus well, well within the design limits of the
> vehicle.

Holy ****. Non sequitur. You appear to not have the slightest idea
that bumps in the road primarily direct force vertically. Your
comparison has 0 validity.

Have someone point out one of your shock absorbers to you and note its
shape and orientation.

It boggles the mind how your nearly perfect state of ignorance seems
to have convinced you that whatever notion pops into your head,
however silly, is thereby rendered into fact.

It is no wonder you expect others to believe your miracle Mazda has
endured 200,000-300,000 miles of hard driving with nary a sign of
wear. You're also crazier than a ****house rat.

> And harking back a little bit to demonstrate more of your idiocy,

This ought to be good...

> if
> dragsters actually did most often fail right off the line and that
> demonstrates that initial hard acceleration is more of a factor than
> high RPM...
>
> ...then why do Formula One cars not fail most often at the start rather
> than as they actually do: well into the race if they fail at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you know everything despite having
no method of learning it?

> Those
> cars perform maximum performance starts every race. It couldn't be
> because--as I've pointed out--they're designed to endure the peak forces
> of running at 18,000rpm for lap after lap for at least two races plus
> all the qualifying and practice laps...
>
> ...could it?

No. I know next to nothing about F1 but I can state unequivocally
that their later failures are not due "to being designed to endure the
peak forces of running at 18,000rpm for lap after lap for at least two
races plus all the qualifying and practice laps..."

To rephrase for the hard of reading; their failures are not due to
being designed not to fail.

You've completely lost it, man.

All the ignorance and rationalization and bull**** in the world will
not change the fact that more work = more wear.
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Jul 9, 4:53*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > *gpsman > wrote:
> > > On Jul 9, 2:18*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > > > *gpsman > wrote:
> > > > > Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> > > > Accelerating hard doesn't cause suspension wear is just the most
> > > > egregious example.
> >
> > > Red herring, and ridiculous. *More force = more wear. *Accelerating
> > > hard and driving faster wears out tires faster... for some odd reason.
> >
> > Straw man: tires were not mentioned in the original article.
>
> You poor *******, you have no idea what comprises a straw man.
>
> Tire wear is indicative of the forces applied to them.

Yes, it is. But tires are not steel parts.

>
> > > If you can't feel the body twist under hard acceleration you have
> > > cement for an ass and we're left with nothing but the Dunning*Kruger
> > > effect.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > As I've said already: you're a dick, but I'll still rebut.
>
> That would be refreshing for a change, but I'd get a second mortgage
> to bet against it.
>
> > Even if the body twists, the twisting forces caused by driveline torque
> > are orders of magnitude less than the twisting forces caused by hitting
> > bumps in the road and thus well, well within the design limits of the
> > vehicle.
>
> Holy ****. Non sequitur. You appear to not have the slightest idea
> that bumps in the road primarily direct force vertically. Your
> comparison has 0 validity.
>
> Have someone point out one of your shock absorbers to you and note its
> shape and orientation.
>
> It boggles the mind how your nearly perfect state of ignorance seems
> to have convinced you that whatever notion pops into your head,
> however silly, is thereby rendered into fact.
>
> It is no wonder you expect others to believe your miracle Mazda has
> endured 200,000-300,000 miles of hard driving with nary a sign of
> wear. You're also crazier than a ****house rat.
>
> > And harking back a little bit to demonstrate more of your idiocy,
>
> This ought to be good...
>
> > if
> > dragsters actually did most often fail right off the line and that
> > demonstrates that initial hard acceleration is more of a factor than
> > high RPM...
> >
> > ...then why do Formula One cars not fail most often at the start rather
> > than as they actually do: well into the race if they fail at all.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you know everything despite having
> no method of learning it?
>
> > Those
> > cars perform maximum performance starts every race. It couldn't be
> > because--as I've pointed out--they're designed to endure the peak forces
> > of running at 18,000rpm for lap after lap for at least two races plus
> > all the qualifying and practice laps...
> >
> > ...could it?
>
> No. I know next to nothing about F1 but I can state unequivocally
> that their later failures are not due "to being designed to endure the
> peak forces of running at 18,000rpm for lap after lap for at least two
> races plus all the qualifying and practice laps..."
>
> To rephrase for the hard of reading; their failures are not due to
> being designed not to fail.
>
> You've completely lost it, man.
>
> All the ignorance and rationalization and bull**** in the world will
> not change the fact that more work = more wear.

As I said, straw man.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."