F1 Spec????
09-12-2009, 08:39 PM
#161
You know when some people wind you the fuck up? Well to me its that Chip geezer, i have not seen anything other than preaching or winding up from him. He ruins any decent thread and yes i reported his abuse to a moderator to get nothing done, he is obviously above the moderators too. Nearly every thread turns into "his" show.
Still on a friendly note, how is that shack going?
God how can i hate someone so much that i don't know, i think its best i kill myself LOL. Obviously he is a normal human being in the flesh and would most probably get on fine with him, but PLEASE loose the up yourself attitude if only for my sanity
Still on a friendly note, how is that shack going?
God how can i hate someone so much that i don't know, i think its best i kill myself LOL. Obviously he is a normal human being in the flesh and would most probably get on fine with him, but PLEASE loose the up yourself attitude if only for my sanity
cheers danny
09-12-2009, 08:50 PM
#163
!god i should of put a bet on it
09-12-2009, 08:56 PM
#165
Regular Contributor
Join Date: May 2009
Location: south
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you say when someone is in your view so much of the time in here its hard to ignore
Wish i could just bait all day on the net Yes i am jealous
09-12-2009, 09:14 PM
#166
BANNED
BANNED
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: west london
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-12-2009, 10:07 PM
#167
DANISH cosworth abuser
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Holbæk, denmark
Posts: 1,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know when some people wind you the fuck up? Well to me its that Chip geezer, i have not seen anything other than preaching or winding up from him. He ruins any decent thread and yes i reported his abuse to a moderator to get nothing done, he is obviously above the moderators too. Nearly every thread turns into "his" show.
Nice thread btw, always good to see chip nagging on other people with his knowlage again
09-12-2009, 11:56 PM
#171
Lots of second hand information coming up in this thread from you which tbh IS a bit out of order as your out to wind Danny up.
I can think of a few well respected people that have used similar parts in their engines and mentioned it yet you or others haven't given them hell about it then.
09-12-2009, 11:58 PM
#172
Ignore feature? I am not THAT offended LOL, it makes my day reading his drivvel if i am honest, without it i wouldnt bother posting LOL! I love to hate him Call that stalking, a sexual desire, hatred whatever it is just the internet and its a place to escape real life as Richie says its Eastenders
Call that stalking, a sexual desire, hatred whatever it is just the internet and its a place to escape real life as Richie says its Eastenders
09-12-2009, 11:59 PM
#173
https://passionford.com/forum/profil...ignore&u=26402
10-12-2009, 08:10 AM
#174
Going by Chip's arguement, I can't call my rear spoiler a WRC spoiler, as it isn't current and is 10 years out of date, so to clarify (in case anyone got confused), I have a "historic" WRC rear spoiler, "historic" WRC front wings, "historic" WRC front bumper, a "historic" WRC front splitter and a "historic" Grp A airbox etc - just incase anyone gets confused and thinks that I am trying to mislead them into thinking my car is a current WRC / Grp A car .
I feel for all those people with genuine Touring Cars, as I'm sure based on this thread that Chip will feel the need to correct them, and point out that they are HISTORIC Touring Cars, and nothing to do with the current modern day TCs - HOW VERY DARE THEY make such a statement to the contrary!
Absolute classic Chip back-peddling.
.I feel for all those people with genuine Touring Cars, as I'm sure based on this thread that Chip will feel the need to correct them, and point out that they are HISTORIC Touring Cars, and nothing to do with the current modern day TCs - HOW VERY DARE THEY make such a statement to the contrary
!Absolute classic Chip back-peddling
.
10-12-2009, 08:37 AM
#175
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Spot on Mike.
The original argument was if the springs in question were indeed F1 spec springs or not.
Chip, when confronted with a 'fail' in PF-speak, now tries to be pedantic and brings up a whole new argument.
Now the argument apperantly is wether the springs are current or historic spec.
A classic case of backpedalling if ever I saw one.
Trust me Chip, sometimes it's just better to just admit you were wrong.
The original argument was if the springs in question were indeed F1 spec springs or not.
Chip, when confronted with a 'fail' in PF-speak, now tries to be pedantic and brings up a whole new argument.
Now the argument apperantly is wether the springs are current or historic spec.
A classic case of backpedalling if ever I saw one.
Trust me Chip, sometimes it's just better to just admit you were wrong.
10-12-2009, 08:46 AM
#176
Going by Chip's arguement, I can't call my rear spoiler a WRC spoiler, as it isn't current and is 10 years out of date, so to clarify (in case anyone got confused), I have a "historic" WRC rear spoiler, "historic" WRC front wings, "historic" WRC front bumper, a "historic" WRC front splitter and a "historic" Grp A airbox etc - just incase anyone gets confused and thinks that I am trying to mislead them into thinking my car is a current WRC / Grp A car .
I feel for all those people with genuine Touring Cars, as I'm sure based on this thread that Chip will feel the need to correct them, and point out that they are HISTORIC Touring Cars, and nothing to do with the current modern day TCs - HOW VERY DARE THEY make such a statement to the contrary!
Absolute classic Chip back-peddling.
.I feel for all those people with genuine Touring Cars, as I'm sure based on this thread that Chip will feel the need to correct them, and point out that they are HISTORIC Touring Cars, and nothing to do with the current modern day TCs - HOW VERY DARE THEY make such a statement to the contrary
!Absolute classic Chip back-peddling
.
10-12-2009, 08:47 AM
#177
Spot on Mike.
The original argument was if the springs in question were indeed F1 spec springs or not.
Chip, when confronted with a 'fail' in PF-speak, now tries to be pedantic and brings up a whole new argument.
Now the argument apperantly is wether the springs are current or historic spec.
A classic case of backpedalling if ever I saw one.
Trust me Chip, sometimes it's just better to just admit you were wrong.
The original argument was if the springs in question were indeed F1 spec springs or not.
Chip, when confronted with a 'fail' in PF-speak, now tries to be pedantic and brings up a whole new argument.
Now the argument apperantly is wether the springs are current or historic spec.
A classic case of backpedalling if ever I saw one.
Trust me Chip, sometimes it's just better to just admit you were wrong.
cheers danny
10-12-2009, 08:48 AM
#178
Mike
That is was where historic got mentioned initially, it was not by me, I just agreed it was a good way to get round there being any confusion. My initial response was actually to JOKE (go and check the smileys) that they should be called Antique F1 Spec, as they were from a 60s DFV.
As springs are now completely defunct in F1, they are indeed a piece of history, where as your WRC spoiler would still have a place on a WRC car today, so its still pretty current technology, but you are welcome to call it whatever you want mate, I wouldnt personally refer to it as historic for that reason, but you can, no drama
As springs are now completely defunct in F1, they are indeed a piece of history, where as your WRC spoiler would still have a place on a WRC car today, so its still pretty current technology, but you are welcome to call it whatever you want mate, I wouldnt personally refer to it as historic for that reason, but you can, no drama
Last edited by Chip; 10-12-2009 at 08:58 AM.
10-12-2009, 08:57 AM
#180
Spot on Mike.
The original argument was if the springs in question were indeed F1 spec springs or not.
Chip, when confronted with a 'fail' in PF-speak, now tries to be pedantic and brings up a whole new argument.
Now the argument apperantly is wether the springs are current or historic spec.
A classic case of backpedalling if ever I saw one.
Trust me Chip, sometimes it's just better to just admit you were wrong.
The original argument was if the springs in question were indeed F1 spec springs or not.
Chip, when confronted with a 'fail' in PF-speak, now tries to be pedantic and brings up a whole new argument.
Now the argument apperantly is wether the springs are current or historic spec.
A classic case of backpedalling if ever I saw one.
Trust me Chip, sometimes it's just better to just admit you were wrong.
I knew exactly which springs Joe has been using on his YB engines for years before this thread appeared, Escos Nige from bristol had "F1 Spec" springs on his joe stevens engine several years ago for example, if you go back and look at the posts you will see it was Danny who was saying they werent actually F1 springs but were made by the same company, it wasnt me, as I knew that Joe bought a massive job lot of DFV springs years ago and has been using them ever since.
But dont let minor things like the facts get in the way when you are just so desperate to talk about me as usual.
Its funny seeing the people who join threads time and time again just to discuss me rather than to discuss the actual topic, and its even funnier when you get it so wrong doing so where you are so desperate to point out what ive said wrong that you dont actually notice it wasnt even me that said it, it was Danny
10-12-2009, 09:03 AM
#183
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Well you've lost me there Chip.
I'm not at all trying to make it out as if you only found out about these springs and/or their use and such via this thread?
God only knows how you got that idea.
It does worry me that you accuse yet another person (me in this case) of joining a thread soley to discuss you or words to that effect...I for one joined this thread as the topic was interesting to me?
Honestly Chip...I really am beginning to wonder if what you're doing on here is the same as what Phil used to or if you really do suffer from paranoid dellussions?
I'm not at all trying to make it out as if you only found out about these springs and/or their use and such via this thread?
God only knows how you got that idea.
It does worry me that you accuse yet another person (me in this case) of joining a thread soley to discuss you or words to that effect...I for one joined this thread as the topic was interesting to me?
Honestly Chip...I really am beginning to wonder if what you're doing on here is the same as what Phil used to or if you really do suffer from paranoid dellussions?
10-12-2009, 09:06 AM
#184
Mike
That is was where historic got mentioned initially, it was not by me, I just agreed it was a good way to get round there being any confusion.
As springs are now completely defunct in F1, they are indeed a piece of history, where as your WRC spoiler would still have a place on a WRC car today, so its still pretty current technology, but you are welcome to call it whatever you want mate, I wouldnt personally refer to it as historic for that reason, but you can, no drama
That is was where historic got mentioned initially, it was not by me, I just agreed it was a good way to get round there being any confusion.
As springs are now completely defunct in F1, they are indeed a piece of history, where as your WRC spoiler would still have a place on a WRC car today, so its still pretty current technology, but you are welcome to call it whatever you want mate, I wouldnt personally refer to it as historic for that reason, but you can, no drama
As far as I am concerned, if the springs used were from an F1 car (of whatever age), I do not think it is unreasonable to state they are "F1 springs". Anyone who knows ANYTHING about motorsport knows that they haven't used valve springs in F1 engines for a number of years - people have even stated this fact on this post - so there IS no confusion (in the same way they would know that the Escort is not a current WRC car
), so would also NOT get confused with a current example (unless of course in each case, they deliberately wanted to do so to make some pedantic point - which IMO covers the posters backing you on this thread).
10-12-2009, 09:09 AM
#186
Now the argument apperantly is wether the springs are current or historic spec.
A classic case of backpedalling if ever I saw one.
A classic case of backpedalling if ever I saw one.
So how the fuck you make out that by saying that they are historic springs now im somehow backpedalling really is a total fucking mystery to me, as joking about them being "anitque" is what I entered the thread saying in the first place!
Last edited by Chip; 10-12-2009 at 09:27 AM.
10-12-2009, 09:15 AM
#187
In case you didn't notice, Escorts are "now completely defunct" in WRC and "they are indeed a piece of history", and an Escort WRC spoiler would have NO place on a current WRC car and 10 years (as you very well know) is practically a lifetime in Motorsport, so 10 years or 20 years, makes no real odds.
In fact people still rally at very high levels with Escort Cosworths even to this day.
As far as I am concerned, if the springs used were from an F1 car (of whatever age), I do not think it is unreasonable to state they are "F1 springs". Anyone who knows ANYTHING about motorsport knows that they haven't used valve springs in F1 engines for a number of years - people have even stated this fact on this post - so there IS no confusion (in the same way they would know that the Escort is not a current WRC car ), so would also NOT get confused with a current example (unless of course in each case, they deliberately wanted to do so to make some pedantic point - which IMO covers the posters backing you on this thread).
), so would also NOT get confused with a current example (unless of course in each case, they deliberately wanted to do so to make some pedantic point - which IMO covers the posters backing you on this thread).
You also seem to have missed the point that it wasnt me who started this thread, I simply joined it to give my opinion like you have, so no one need to be "backing" me in this thread, as its not my thread anyway.
I couldnt personally care less what Danny refers to his springs as, I just find it funny someone referring to 40 year old springs as "F1" when they have absolutely nothing in common with F1 from the last couple of decades at all, if you think that is somehow comparable to a WRC Escort that is only a small distance away from the current WRC cars by commparison, I would suggest its you being pedantic not me, you say 10 years is a long time in WRC, well 40 years is a thousand lifetimes in F1 then!
10-12-2009, 09:21 AM
#188
15K+ Super Poster!!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 18,589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i can kind of grasp where chip is coming from, as the term "F1" is a very blanket one.
and because of this techincally both parties are right, as other than describing it as "historic F1" as chip mentioned, how can you, but im sure they would affect sales of these massively,
"histoic spec" f1 valve springs, doesnt quite have the same ring does it. Followed by the price lol
easier to date things like in other forms of motorsport as there are bandings.
Grp N
Grp 4
Grp B
grp A
BTC
WTCC
WRC
From these we can get a rough age of the technology.
and because of this techincally both parties are right, as other than describing it as "historic F1" as chip mentioned, how can you, but im sure they would affect sales of these massively,
"histoic spec" f1 valve springs, doesnt quite have the same ring does it. Followed by the price lol
easier to date things like in other forms of motorsport as there are bandings.
Grp N
Grp 4
Grp B
grp A
BTC
WTCC
WRC
From these we can get a rough age of the technology.
10-12-2009, 09:28 AM
#189
Chip,
Again you're twisting the arguement to suit yourself. The DFV may have originated in the 60s, but it was STILL using valve springs and still being used in F1 as late as 1985 (where it was still winning).
Also, I doubt the springs that Joe purchased were from a batch of the 60's engines (like you seem to be trying to imply with quoting "40 year old springs"), but from the 80's engines.
Now my maths isn't probably as good as yours, but mid 80s to present day ISN'T 40 years....
Again you're twisting the arguement to suit yourself. The DFV may have originated in the 60s, but it was STILL using valve springs and still being used in F1 as late as 1985 (where it was still winning).
Also, I doubt the springs that Joe purchased were from a batch of the 60's engines (like you seem to be trying to imply with quoting "40 year old springs"), but from the 80's engines.
Now my maths isn't probably as good as yours, but mid 80s to present day ISN'T 40 years....
Last edited by Mike Rainbird; 10-12-2009 at 09:31 AM.
10-12-2009, 09:34 AM
#190
i can kind of grasp where chip is coming from, as the term "F1" is a very blanket one.
and because of this techincally both parties are right, as other than describing it as "historic F1" as chip mentioned, how can you, but im sure they would affect sales of these massively,
"histoic spec" f1 valve springs, doesnt quite have the same ring does it. Followed by the price lol
easier to date things like in other forms of motorsport as there are bandings.
Grp N
Grp 4
Grp B
grp A
BTC
WTCC
WRC
From these we can get a rough age of the technology.
and because of this techincally both parties are right, as other than describing it as "historic F1" as chip mentioned, how can you, but im sure they would affect sales of these massively,
"histoic spec" f1 valve springs, doesnt quite have the same ring does it. Followed by the price lol
easier to date things like in other forms of motorsport as there are bandings.
Grp N
Grp 4
Grp B
grp A
BTC
WTCC
WRC
From these we can get a rough age of the technology.
That is only assuming a certain amount of motorsport knowledge, which to me is the same assumption as I am making about F1. I personally thought that everyone with a modicom of knowledge knew that these "F1 springs" were from the Cosworth DFV engines of the 80s.
But then I also know there difference in many of the above items.
10-12-2009, 09:35 AM
#191
Again you're twisting the arguement to suit yourself. The DFV may have originated in the 60s, but it was STILL using valve springs and still being used in F1 as late as 1985 (where it was still winning).
Also, I doubt the springs that Joe purchased were from a batch of the 60's engines (like you seem to be trying to imply with quoting "40 year old springs"), but from the 80's engines.
Now my maths isn't probably as good as yours, but mid 80s to present day ISN'T 40 years....
Also, I doubt the springs that Joe purchased were from a batch of the 60's engines (like you seem to be trying to imply with quoting "40 year old springs"), but from the 80's engines.
Now my maths isn't probably as good as yours, but mid 80s to present day ISN'T 40 years....
10-12-2009, 09:37 AM
#192
Advanced PassionFord User
This thread really is full of shit.
To summarise, Joe Stevens and Enhanced Performance use DFV valve springs. The DFV is/was an F1 engine.
Hmmmmm, why would anyone say they were F1 spec valve springs
To summarise, Joe Stevens and Enhanced Performance use DFV valve springs. The DFV is/was an F1 engine.
Hmmmmm, why would anyone say they were F1 spec valve springs
10-12-2009, 09:43 AM
#193
I think that was Wozzy's intention when he started it
To keep any pedants happy, easier to say:
it WAS an F1 engine, it now IS an historic F1 engine
As if you are going to summarise you may as well be pedantic doing so in order to avoid any further discussion.
To big up their spec sheet making it sound high tech typically, or to justify the cost of springs, as if you tell people they are schmittholm springs most people wont have heard of them, if you tell people they are DFV then still a lot of people wont have heard of it, but if you say F1, then everyone knows what that is, even if they are no longer relevant to that formula at all as NO valve springs are used anymore in F1
To summarise, Joe Stevens and Enhanced Performance use DFV valve springs. The DFV is/was an F1 engine.
it WAS an F1 engine, it now IS an historic F1 engine
As if you are going to summarise you may as well be pedantic doing so in order to avoid any further discussion.
Hmmmmm, why would anyone say they were F1 spec valve springs
10-12-2009, 09:48 AM
#194
The one question outside of all the "blah blah blah" I have which I believe Mark k brought up, and no one has seems to answer is why would a valve spring specifically designed for a 3.5 litre normally aspirated V8 that does not come on song until way past the highest revs of a YB is deemed an upgrade for a big hp turbo charged 4 cylinder YB
What "extra" qualities does it have to justify its use in such an application, or is it a case of best fit of an already available part to suit a need just because its deemed to be better because its F1 technology
edit
meant to say as well the DFV and its derivatives are still winning highly competitive F1 and other races even today, and at 40k plus for a tired one and 30k to rebuild alone, I doubt the valve springs used in them are 40, 30 or even 20 years old but will be brand new even if the technology to design them was much older.
What "extra" qualities does it have to justify its use in such an application, or is it a case of best fit of an already available part to suit a need just because its deemed to be better because its F1 technology
edit
meant to say as well the DFV and its derivatives are still winning highly competitive F1 and other races even today, and at 40k plus for a tired one and 30k to rebuild alone, I doubt the valve springs used in them are 40, 30 or even 20 years old but will be brand new even if the technology to design them was much older.
Last edited by PAUL S; 10-12-2009 at 09:53 AM.
10-12-2009, 09:49 AM
#195
For turner RS as an example, I would wager its at least 10% of all his posts ever made on this forum are about me, in fact probably more than that.
10-12-2009, 09:50 AM
#196
Advanced PassionFord User
if you tell people they are schmittholm springs most people wont have heard of them, if you tell people they are DFV then still a lot of people wont have heard of it, but if you say F1, then everyone knows what that is, even if they are no longer relevant to that formula at all as NO valve springs are used anymore in F1
10-12-2009, 09:55 AM
#197
15K+ Super Poster!!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 18,589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryan,
That is only assuming a certain amount of motorsport knowledge, which to me is the same assumption as I am making about F1. I personally thought that everyone with a modicom of knowledge knew that these "F1 springs" were from the Cosworth DFV engines of the 80s.
But then I also know there difference in many of the above items.
That is only assuming a certain amount of motorsport knowledge, which to me is the same assumption as I am making about F1. I personally thought that everyone with a modicom of knowledge knew that these "F1 springs" were from the Cosworth DFV engines of the 80s.
But then I also know there difference in many of the above items.
i for one didnt know about the DFV springs.
for the record my double valve springs with retainers and platforms were like £140 all in for my rst. obviously half the amount of springs being 8 valve, but gotta love the price hike.
10-12-2009, 09:55 AM
#198
The one question outside of all the "blah blah blah" I have which I believe Mark k brought up, and no one has seems to answer is why would a valve spring specifically designed for a 3.5 litre normally aspirated V8 that does not come on song until way past the highest revs of a YB is deemed an upgrade for a big hp turbo charged 4 cylinder YB
Because joe bought a box of them cheap about this size:
And needs to shift them to people at top money to make as much profit on them as possible, so now fits them to any YB, lawnmower or hedge trimmer engines he rebuilds.
What "extra" qualities does it have to justify its use in such an application, or is it a case of best fit of an already available part to suit a need just because its deemed to be better because its F1 technology
They are a very very well made spring, the material is mega consistant, they can take huge rpm without coilbind which means consistant use at lower RPM (ie 8K, low for them but high for a YB) doesnt phase them at all, they offer great control of the valve and dont suffer from a lot of the harmonic problems that many other springs do, so they work very very well in a YB or just about anything else, they are essentially well over engineered for the job and you can use other springs quite happily, but given the cheapness these ones can be had as surplus stock, it makes sense to use them rather than pay the same money for an inferior product "new" rather than get these as "new old stock"
10-12-2009, 09:57 AM
#199
No I havent, cause it wasnt my question, it was Wozzy's Ive no idea why people are trying to turn it into me having asked it when it wasnt, this thread had dozens of replies before I got properly involved in it at all
Agreed, its all about the Pub spec sheet, but that doesnt detract from the fact they are exception quality springs if you referred to them as schmittholm springs (or kellfner (sp?) the other people who made them) to anyone in the know, they would realise that you had essentially the best possible springs that you can have for a solid lifter engine.
as to why many customers and the suppliers would put F1 spec. Customers want parts justifying to them for what they cost, mostly so they can tell there mates down the pub.
