[Computerpro3]

pics? Actually, never mind, she has the same bloodline as he does.

I was looking through his recent posts and this one just takes the cake:

Quote:

Techno/electronic dance music is actually pretty similar to classical music in construction, it's use of a chorus, and it's incredible building and crescendo abilities.

That is probably the most amusing thing I have ever heard in my entire life. He has absolutely, absolutely no idea what he is talking about. I find that highly amusing since he enjoys telling others how little we know.

So how do I know he is clueless? I am studying to be a concert pianist at the Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music under the concert pianist Awadagin Pratt.

I give you my word, techno/electronic dance music has virtually nothing in common with classical music in terms of construction.

Cash, would you care to show me, since I clearly don't know, what techno music has in common with a specific peice of classical repretoire, going measure by measure, in terms of harmonic structure, the periods and antecedents, the cadences, etc?

 

[cash68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Computerpro3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Okay, you take your lawnmower with your bigass swaybar, and 50 inch wide tires, and R compound tires. I will take an Audi R8 with skinny winter tires. Let's see who wins. You will even have a weight advantage. Should be fair, right? What really matters is power to weight ratio, and how the suspension is setup. It is funny how some people react when faced with logic. I wonder what he will call me next? You see, if your engine has no power, your car will simply not move. That qualifies as "anything" to do with slalom times in my book.

Hey 17 yr old.

POWER. HAS. NOTHING. TO DO. WITH SLALOM SPEEDS.

PERIOD. It might have be a factor if the car could not reach that speed, but it has ZERO to do with a 700ft slalom, as almost any car built in the last 60 years can reach 60-70mph. Slalom speeds depend on the grip of the vehicle to the surface, which can be increased through wider tires, or a softer compound. Suspension is also a huge player, as is the center of gravity, as well as the height of the sidewalls of the tires.

Now you are changing your tune from "A stock honda couldn't possibly outhandle a porsche Cayenne" (which they can, and a lot do) to "Power to weight ratios rule". I proved you wrong, and instead of admitting that, you just change your tune.

You are impossible to argue with, because you are ignorant, you ignore facts, you ignore research, you feel that snowmobiles are safer than cars, you feel that SUVs don't suck because a $95,000 SUV performs decently therefor all SUVs are okay. I give up. I can't win with you. Instead, I will just point out to everyone else how wrong you are:

"The traffic safety agency reported last week that there were 16.42 deaths of S.U.V. occupants in accidents last year for every 100,000 registered S.U.V.'s. The figure for passenger cars was 14.85 deaths for each 100,000 registered; pickups were slightly higher than cars at 15.17 deaths per 100,000, while vans were lowest at 11.2 occupant deaths for every 100,000 registered. "

The Center for Auto Safety

 

[Computerpro3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey 17 yr old.

No, your math was wrong in the other direction. Try again. This time you have to add though, so that will probably screw you up.

Quote:

POWER. HAS. NOTHING. TO DO. WITH SLALOM SPEEDS. PERIOD.

How is that possible if the car's engine is 0hp? Are you saying a stationary car can beat an Audi R8?

Quote:

It might have be a factor if the car could not reach that speed, but it has ZERO to do with a 700ft slalom,

Being a factor and not being a factor are mutually exclusive, make up your mind.

Quote:

Now you are changing your tune from "A stock honda couldn't possibly outhandle a porsche Cayenne" (which they can, and a lot do)

Speaking of flip-flopping, now some Cayenne's can outhandle your beloved honda's? Reality's a bitch, eh?

Also, the power to weight ratio of some of the big SUV's are higher than your honda's. That is why I am not contradicting myself.

Quote:

I can't win with you.

Don't beat yourself up over it. Some people just aren't cut out for intellectual debate. It's nothing to feel bad about. But you can redeem yourself if you'd like by answering my music question in my previous post.

Quote:

"The traffic safety agency reported last week that there were 16.42 deaths of S.U.V. occupants in accidents last year for every 100,000 registered S.U.V.'s. The figure for passenger cars was 14.85 deaths for each 100,000 registered; pickups were slightly higher than cars at 15.17 deaths per 100,000, while vans were lowest at 11.2 occupant deaths for every 100,000 registered. " The Center for Auto Safety

Stop quoting outdated studies: from 2007

Quote:

Corroboration comes via the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHSTA) 2005 crash stats. Measuring driver fatalities in all types of crashes, SUV's were 5.2 percent safer than passenger cars. And it’s no fluke. In 2003, SUV’s out-protected cars by 5.3 percent. In 2004, the figure climbed to 6.1 percent. In 2005, it rose to 6.6 percent

IIHS and NHTSA Agree: SUV’s Safer Than Cars | The Truth About Cars

Can't argue with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, can you? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees, as evidenced in that article.

I rest my case.

 

[NightWoundsTime]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Computerpro3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif from another thread I just popped in on (this isn't directed at me): The banhammer is strong with this one, methinks.

Agreed. A quick google search of Cash68 shows someone with that name banned at AudioKarma, and InsideMacGames. If it's not him, then Cash68 must be some kind of unlucky username that instantly turns you into a hateful troll. Sorry bud, hopefully you'll wake up after the ban and ask forgiveness for your idiocy.

 

[Stephonovich]

I'm going to have to agree with Cash68 on the HP/Weight bit. Handling is all about suspension setup, downforce, tires, and so on. Perfect example is the Lotus Elise. Only puts out about 190HP, but due to it's light weight and wonderful suspension, it pulls 71.1 MPH in the slalom. HP/weight? 1:10.3. A Dodge Viper SRT-10, with a HP/weight of 1/6.8, pulls 68.6 MPH.

You want an easy experiment? Get either Forza Motorsport (1 or 2, your choice - Xbox/360) or Gran Turismo, and an account with some money. Go get a tiny, light car, and lighten it even more. Give it better suspension and tires, then try it on a tight course. Now get something huge like a Bentley Continental GT and give it more power. Try the same course again. I assure you, I have beaten many people in my VW GTI MKII. It's a boxy, tiny beast from the 80s. Lucky to hit 120MPH, but damn if it won't out handle almost anything in it's class. Or how about the Lotus Elan? Beautiful old sports car that weighs next to nothing. Again, not much up on the power, but it can carve corners like no other.

 

[Computerpro3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm going to have to agree with Cash68 on the HP/Weight bit. Handling is all about suspension setup, downforce, tires, and so on. Perfect example is the Lotus Elise. Only puts out about 190HP, but due to it's light weight and wonderful suspension, it pulls 71.1 MPH in the slalom. HP/weight? 1:10.3. A Dodge Viper SRT-10, with a HP/weight of 1/6.8, pulls 68.6 MPH. You want an easy experiment? Get either Forza Motorsport (1 or 2, your choice - Xbox/360) or Gran Turismo, and an account with some money. Go get a tiny, light car, and lighten it even more. Give it better suspension and tires, then try it on a tight course. Now get something huge like a Bentley Continental GT and give it more power. Try the same course again. I assure you, I have beaten many people in my VW GTI MKII. It's a boxy, tiny beast from the 80s. Lucky to hit 120MPH, but damn if it won't out handle almost anything in it's class. Or how about the Lotus Elan? Beautiful old sports car that weighs next to nothing. Again, not much up on the power, but it can carve corners like no other.

I am the one who said power to weight ratio matters. He is the one claiming that power has no significance. Not some significance, but NO significance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by computerpro3 What really matters is power to weight ratio, and how the suspension is setup.

Weight can be offset to a certain degree by increased power and proper suspension tuning/gearing.

If it can't, how in the world can a Jeep SRT8 beat the prelude by 2 full mph?

Power to weight ratio is what makes the atom such a beast of a car.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Computerpro3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am the one who said power to weight ratio matters. He is the one claiming that power has no significance. Not some significance, but NO significance. If it can't, how in the world can a Jeep SRT8 beat the prelude by 2 full mph? Power to weight ratio is what makes the atom such a beast of a car.

I know. I guess I was kind of ambiguous. I meant that HP/Weight didn't matter as much as suspension and tires.

SRT8 beating Prelude...? No... R&T has the SRT8 at 0.85G and 63.5MPH That's 2 MPH slower than the Prelude. (an 80s model, at that - I wonder what a 4th or 5th gen would do) The only 67.4 number I see on the wikicars page you posted awhile back was the SRT8s height - 67.4 inches.

And yes, the Atom is an incredible car. However, it has some serious chassis and suspension design. Tubular frame, unequal-length double wishbone, extremely low body, and body panels designed to generate huge levels of downforce.

 

[Stephonovich]

A lifted, fake Hummer with shiny rims that I doubt have ever seen dirt, and relatively low profile street tires. Sad. Also, the picture is way too big. I've got a 1680x1050 and I had to shrink it down to fit.

P.S. The wife says learn to park.

 

[tyrion]

I've tried to clean up this thread. If the topic can't be discussed in a civil manner than it will not be discussed any longer.

 

[nickknutson]

Just curious, how old is the OP of this thread?

 

[cash68]

Old enough to know what I'm talking about, when it comes to vehicles.

 

[swduncan]

"They might call it a sport utility vehicle, but I know a station wagon when I see one." - Miller Beer ad.

 

[nickknutson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Old enough to know what I'm talking about, when it comes to vehicles.

How old is that?

 

[cash68]

Old enough to know what I'm talking about when it comes to vehicles.

 

[nickknutson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Old enough to know what I'm talking about when it comes to vehicles.

Man, you're quick to point out how stupid people are, and how superior your intelligence is, but you won't answer one simple question. That's funny.

I could care less if you hate SUV's, or not. You, and your opinions, hold no water with me because you are anonymously posting your argument about the "evil" SUV with no information on your background...you could be an 18 year old high school student posting his essay for the argumentative research paper he had to write last week for all we know.