Back From Brunters (Added Videos and Pictures page 4) Maybe Grudge Match Coming!!
08-04-2008, 02:39 PM
#281
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
08-04-2008, 02:46 PM
#284
20K+ Super Poster.
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex... and Birmingham!
Posts: 21,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its about £50 from memory for a hour a brunters. Hardly big potatos! You could get a nice few Topspeed runs in....
although I'd want a wideband and someone watching it if I were you... I have one of those as well you can borrow/buy!
although I'd want a wideband and someone watching it if I were you... I have one of those as well you can borrow/buy!
08-04-2008, 03:07 PM
#286
A TomTom doesnt really update quick enough, and isnt designed for use as a speedo so doesnt cross reference enough satelites at once as far as im aware, but would give a vague indication.
I took the 1.2 16v corsa I was in for a blast, it cracked 102mph indicated and that was leaving the breaking perilously late
I took the 1.2 16v corsa I was in for a blast, it cracked 102mph indicated and that was leaving the breaking perilously late
08-04-2008, 03:28 PM
#287
Rod
Clutching at straws etc, that is not where I believe I am coming from. Its the comparison of proven facts much the same drum as you beat. You would be the first questioning peoples achievements/claims unless solidly backed up.
As I understood it the time you claimed to do 200 off gas was a run where the nos was installed and activated. A later look at the logs and discussion of pressure drop etc led it to be classed in your eyes as a non nos run even though it was on etc. I'm aware you will then cite facts of running rich, detrimental effects etc etc but as I was aware it was under these circumstances. Again I did not know of you doing any reported/witnessed non nos runs.
I still think you are utterly bananas for trying to push your engine as far as you are after the issue at brunters and then again on the dyno. But fair play if you hit your targets you deserve them.
I do not have any issue with mad etc and am very happy that dave has had some fun out of his car after the time and effort he has put into it. I also appreciate marks comments on anything as so few tuners are willing to be as open to the public.
This optimum run that is being spoken about. It seems more like tail wind.
Clutching at straws etc, that is not where I believe I am coming from. Its the comparison of proven facts much the same drum as you beat. You would be the first questioning peoples achievements/claims unless solidly backed up.
As I understood it the time you claimed to do 200 off gas was a run where the nos was installed and activated. A later look at the logs and discussion of pressure drop etc led it to be classed in your eyes as a non nos run even though it was on etc. I'm aware you will then cite facts of running rich, detrimental effects etc etc but as I was aware it was under these circumstances. Again I did not know of you doing any reported/witnessed non nos runs.
I still think you are utterly bananas for trying to push your engine as far as you are after the issue at brunters and then again on the dyno. But fair play if you hit your targets you deserve them.
I do not have any issue with mad etc and am very happy that dave has had some fun out of his car after the time and effort he has put into it. I also appreciate marks comments on anything as so few tuners are willing to be as open to the public.
This optimum run that is being spoken about. It seems more like tail wind.
. I know, as I spent an hour there doing the mapping before Bedford and it cost me £120 - I should have turned round and gone for a play for another hour 
08-04-2008, 06:44 PM
#294
Would that offer be applicable if say i could get 4 cars that wanted timing? 
£100 each
Lee, i didnt mean the cost of using brunters, it is the cost of proper timing gear i meant mate. I will have a wideband afr gaugue in my car along with det cans.
£100 each Lee, i didnt mean the cost of using brunters, it is the cost of proper timing gear i meant mate. I will have a wideband afr gaugue in my car along with det cans.
08-04-2008, 08:17 PM
#297
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
What a LOAD of bollocks... 
TOTAL bollocks....
you say 'track orrientated'... ER ITS A FUCKING RACING CAR YOU BELL END!!!
ITS NOT ROAD LEGAL!!!! So yes... it was pretty track orientated....
I've never seen anyone try and take anything away from Andy! He engineering and fabrication skills are amazing. His new car is just mind blowing!!! and he is a hell of a driver as well!
But how is he making a 'cunt' of people when he turned up with his car looking like Concorde... didn't do 200mph and blew his engine???
I can see you are Scottish so obviously completely blinkered and probably drunk so I will let you off
TOTAL bollocks....
you say 'track orrientated'... ER ITS A FUCKING RACING CAR YOU BELL END!!!
ITS NOT ROAD LEGAL!!!! So yes... it was pretty track orientated....
I've never seen anyone try and take anything away from Andy! He engineering and fabrication skills are amazing. His new car is just mind blowing!!! and he is a hell of a driver as well!
But how is he making a 'cunt' of people when he turned up with his car looking like Concorde... didn't do 200mph and blew his engine???
I can see you are Scottish so obviously completely blinkered and probably drunk so I will let you off
a bell end?oh a internet hero??
not road legal???could easily be.
not seen anyone take anything away??clearly your eyesight or grap of english is limited
clearly im scootish and drunk?yes and i dont drink
and lastly lol youl let me off????wtf id rather you didnt
08-04-2008, 10:21 PM
#301
09-04-2008, 09:24 AM
#302
What I wouldn't call optimum is a 25-30mph head wind which prevents an RS Turbo going back with 25bhp extra at the wheels, yet only being able to achieve 0.2mph more (149.9 to 150.1mph)
. Makes the 180mph achieve by a certain Sapphire in the same conditions all the more impressive .
09-04-2008, 09:49 AM
#303
Testing the future
09-04-2008, 09:50 AM
#304
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I wouldn't call optimum is a 25-30mph head wind which prevents an RS Turbo going back with 25bhp extra at the wheels, yet only being able to achieve 0.2mph more (149.9 to 150.1mph) . Makes the 180mph achieve by a certain Sapphire in the same conditions all the more impressive .
. Makes the 180mph achieve by a certain Sapphire in the same conditions all the more impressive .
09-04-2008, 09:55 AM
#307
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Local, when i'm home...
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is next to no or no wind at all then the car perform's just from it's own power alone
09-04-2008, 10:02 AM
#309
. The run would be classed as wind assisted by all and sundry . So a still wind would be considered perfect for no pithy comebacks from any "doubters" 
.In true confirmed top speed runs, the car has to run in both directions for a mean average, but I can't see Brunters letting that happen, unless you booked the entire airfield for yourself and no other cars were allowed.
09-04-2008, 10:16 AM
#311
Testing the future
but the wind speed and direction is not measured and logged as part of the run, so who can say one way or the other?
i clearly understand the implications of a strong tail wind on topspeed - just maybe not the implications on a bunch of internet saddos who just want to argue the toss over some variables that have not even been properly measured
i mean what the hell is the point in people insisting on using speed recording equipment accurate to 0.00001 mph if they don't even measure the wind speed or direction? it's a completely useless experiment in pure scientific terms
agreed about running in both directions
i clearly understand the implications of a strong tail wind on topspeed - just maybe not the implications on a bunch of internet saddos who just want to argue the toss over some variables that have not even been properly measured
i mean what the hell is the point in people insisting on using speed recording equipment accurate to 0.00001 mph if they don't even measure the wind speed or direction? it's a completely useless experiment in pure scientific terms
agreed about running in both directions
09-04-2008, 10:30 AM
#314
but the wind speed and direction is not measured and logged as part of the run, so who can say one way or the other?
i clearly understand the implications of a strong tail wind on topspeed - just maybe not the implications on a bunch of internet saddos who just want to argue the toss over some variables that have not even been properly measured
i mean what the hell is the point in people insisting on using speed recording equipment accurate to 0.00001 mph if they don't even measure the wind speed or direction? it's a completely useless experiment in pure scientific terms
agreed about running in both directions
i clearly understand the implications of a strong tail wind on topspeed - just maybe not the implications on a bunch of internet saddos who just want to argue the toss over some variables that have not even been properly measured
i mean what the hell is the point in people insisting on using speed recording equipment accurate to 0.00001 mph if they don't even measure the wind speed or direction? it's a completely useless experiment in pure scientific terms
agreed about running in both directions
.Yum's run was as good as he is ever going to see without more power. Martin's run has some left (for the reasons he posted previously - the idiot should have kept his cards close to his chest on that one
), along with a possible improvement in weather conditions.The only way to do it properly (so that wind speed doesn't have to be measured) is to run in both directions and the average taken. This would negate any improvements / reductions attributed to wind conditions
.
09-04-2008, 10:36 AM
#315
Mike, have you stopped to think what an Idiot you sound to anyone of an even vaguely scientific persuasion when you start talking about an enterage of unqualified people with no measuring equipment to verify one way or the other if it was "a bit windy" or "kind of windy" or "windyish" or "very windy" and how that makes any difference
09-04-2008, 10:38 AM
#317
Is there a calibrated "wetting pot" to dip it in containing exactly the right volume and temperature of water?
What happens if people have a different size finger?
Or does Mike personally lick the finger in question to assure it always fair? If so if I ever run there I will make sure I scratch my arse first.
What happens if people have a different size finger?
Or does Mike personally lick the finger in question to assure it always fair? If so if I ever run there I will make sure I scratch my arse first.
09-04-2008, 10:44 AM
#318
Mike, have you stopped to think what an Idiot you sound to anyone of an even vaguely scientific persuasion when you start talking about an enterage of unqualified people with no measuring equipment to verify one way or the other if it was "a bit windy" or "kind of windy" or "windyish" or "very windy" and how that makes any difference
. I didn't say it was scientific, I just said that is what happens.I even clarified my OWN stance on that to ensure that people couldn't misinterpret it
. I forgot I had to deal with arguementative twats .
