November 4, 200321 yr d0wn5yndr0me']wow i cant beleive how well this picture fits this stupid fucking thread http://d0wn.stfunewb.org/Pics/domesticEthug.jpg r i f k ! 1
November 4, 200321 yr it goes ass over nose because the front end still has downforce, rear end has lift, and the two aren't balanced, mate :)
November 5, 200321 yr it goes ass over nose because the front end still has downforce, rear end has lift, and the two aren't balanced, mate :) The front has downforce because you're "punching" the other end of the lever, mate.
November 5, 200321 yr afctually, it's because there's opposite pressure on each end...downforce on front air dam, hood, and windscreen, due to angle of attack, as it splits the airstream while moving forward (which increases, as the angle of attack increases, due to nose tipping down), and lift over the rear, created by the dropping or narrowing of profile from the "peak" of the roof, down the rear windscreen, across the "negatively" angled rear deck (upper surface of trunk) and off to nothing as trunk ends, and air that WAS flowing over car has farther to travel to meet air that was travelling under car, making the differential in air pressure lower on top, higher from below....which decreases, as angle of attack changes as car tumbles....the only reason it actually tumbles is because it can't maintain lift, and is misbalanced in forces enough that the nose hits before the tail...usually severe enough in angle to "land" on the lower front chassis and/or body, rather than on front tires, causing it to flip. IF the car was designed so the "pseudo vaccuum" that created the lift occurred over the center of gravity, all that would happen is the car would glide for a few meters, then hit the ground again as air resistance slowed it down...at which point drive tires would hit ground again, car would accelerate until it created enough diferential in pressure, then it would glide again...over and over and over....since you're agreeing that the cars do, in fact, fall nose first once they manage to get themselves airbourne, you are, in fact, agreeing to my statements about where pseudo vaccuum is formed over the car, and why rear spoilers are used to move that pressure differential maximum...which shows that my statement from the get-go, that spoilers are there to increase TOTAL effective downforce, and move the vaccuum point, to increase total traction, and that they do NOT remove friction from front tires, simply prevent it from being removed from the rear is correct, and you've been arguing just to see what kind of argument you'll pull out of your ass THIS time. :)
November 5, 200321 yr in lamens term the spoiler is used basically to balance out the forces on both sides of car i drive a 97 240SX with an 2r20Det swap and s-14 conversion. SO for all of u who were saying dont rice up a civic come around dayton ohio and i will own ur asses with my 240 biatch
November 6, 200321 yr afctually, it's because there's opposite pressure on each end...downforce on front air dam, hood, and windscreen, due to angle of attack, as it splits the airstream while moving forward (which increases, as the angle of attack increases, due to nose tipping down), and lift over the rear, created by the dropping or narrowing of profile from the "peak" of the roof, down the rear windscreen, across the "negatively" angled rear deck (upper surface of trunk) and off to nothing as trunk ends, and air that WAS flowing over car has farther to travel to meet air that was travelling under car, making the differential in air pressure lower on top, higher from below....which decreases, as angle of attack changes as car tumbles....the only reason it actually tumbles is because it can't maintain lift, and is misbalanced in forces enough that the nose hits before the tail...usually severe enough in angle to "land" on the lower front chassis and/or body, rather than on front tires, causing it to flip. IF the car was designed so the "pseudo vaccuum" that created the lift occurred over the center of gravity, all that would happen is the car would glide for a few meters, then hit the ground again as air resistance slowed it down...at which point drive tires would hit ground again, car would accelerate until it created enough diferential in pressure, then it would glide again...over and over and over....since you're agreeing that the cars do, in fact, fall nose first once they manage to get themselves airbourne, you are, in fact, agreeing to my statements about where pseudo vaccuum is formed over the car, and why rear spoilers are used to move that pressure differential maximum...which shows that my statement from the get-go, that spoilers are there to increase TOTAL effective downforce, and move the vaccuum point, to increase total traction, and that they do NOT remove friction from front tires, simply prevent it from being removed from the rear is correct, and you've been arguing just to see what kind of argument you'll pull out of your ass THIS time. :) I only read the last sentence of that. Let's see you find it because there is no punctuation. I have agreed with you on the counts of total effective downforce and traction. I have NOT agreed with you that spoilers are effective for increasing acceleration on FWD cars, which is what we are arguing. You have disregarded this and changed topics to handling so that you wouldn't lose the argument. Only an idiot wouldn't see this. You have clearly lost and are trying to pull arguments out of YOUR ass so that you don't look stupid for arguing over acceleration. I don't have to argue anything because I've already won. You'll notice I haven't brought up any new information for a while, just saying it in an easier way every time. I'll do it again in "lamens term" (note: this is laymen's term for laymen's terms): Acceleration decreases when you take force away from the front tires which is what moving the vacuum does, which is the point of adding on a spoiler to a FWD car. You are correct about the handling issue because the sopiler is designed to make the car handle better at higher speeds, but that is not the issue here. You can build cars all you want but you obviously have no basic understanding of the concepts behind acceleration and the difference between that and handling. Oh, and just for you: acceleration isn't velocity.
November 7, 200321 yr no shit acceleration isn't velocity acceleration is delta vee (change in velocity), while velocity is total speed accumulated. nonetheless, you do NOT remove friction from drive tires by moving the vaccuum...you prevent it from being removed from rear tires, is all...all of the airstream BEFORE the peak of profile is splitting upwards...meaning that no matter what you do, there is more and more pressure on the front of the car no matter WHAT you do. You really want to try and tell me a 450+ square inch spoiler is capable of producing more downpressure than a 14 square foot hood and 10 square foot windshield, even though the windshield is at a steeper angle and the hood is more "pressure area" at a close angle?
November 7, 200321 yr k this shit about cars needs to be moved to the "i know some serious badass shit about cars to compensate for my nubbler of a dick" forum
November 7, 200321 yr no shit acceleration isn't velocity acceleration is delta vee (change in velocity), while velocity is total speed accumulated. nonetheless, you do NOT remove friction from drive tires by moving the vaccuum...you prevent it from being removed from rear tires, is all...all of the airstream BEFORE the peak of profile is splitting upwards...meaning that no matter what you do, there is more and more pressure on the front of the car no matter WHAT you do. You really want to try and tell me a 450+ square inch spoiler is capable of producing more downpressure than a 14 square foot hood and 10 square foot windshield, even though the windshield is at a steeper angle and the hood is more "pressure area" at a close angle? Do you mean to tell me that you are putting more force on the front of the car than the back? Because if you do then you are, again, reducing acceleration when you add on a spoiler. Just like I've been saying. Go figure. Oh and you could have just said that A is the derivative of V, or maybe you never got to calculus.
November 7, 200321 yr got to calculus...simply doubted YOU had :) and yes...technically, you DO reduce acceleration by adding a spoiler...to ANY car...beyond certain speeds...air drag is the biggest factor to preventing speeds in excess of 300 MPH by wheel-driven vehicles..which is exactly why they've gone to jet and rocket propulsion for land speed records since about 1965...plenty possible to produce engines with HP and torque required to top 300, even 600 MPH on rollers...none of them can do it on flat straight run, though, with, or without spoiler. (ok...a few exceptions, where they've topped 300 MPH...but it took close to a million dollars, and some HEAVY engineering skull sweat in every damned case...and none of them topped 350). However, since this impact isn't truly signifigant, compared to other factors, until you're talking "under 9" speeds in a quarter miler(after which point, it becomes exponentially more important, since drag increases at a "square/cube" type ratio), there is no point in considering it when desiging a quarter mile car...but there IS a point in considering how you're gonna keep all your tires on the ground firmly enough to help you get to the finish line, rather than bouncing off walls, or over curbs (depending on where you race) just so's you know...at 55 MPH "air drag" is twice what it is at 32 MPH...at 77, it's twice what it was at 55, at 89, it's twice what it was at 77.....by the time you hit 300 MPH, air drag is close to 1024 times what it was at 55...pretty obvious why that's a serious impact, if you've ever held your hand out the window on the freeway, and "played" with the slipstream, eh? Especially if you consider that "terminal velocity" for a skydiver is barely in excess of 100 MPH...meaning that at speeds of about 100 MPH, air pressure created by "drag" is heavy enough to equal your mass...preventing further acceleration of a falling human body while falling from up to two miles above ground level(meaning that the pressure of air against you body as you skydive is 4 times what you feel with your hand out the window of the car at 50...and the air pressure against the car is 1024 times that "pressure" at 300MPH than it is at 50...rounding figures here)
November 7, 200321 yr got to calculus...simply doubted YOU had :) and yes...technically, you DO reduce acceleration by adding a spoiler...to ANY car... I stopped reading here because I just won and you just admitted that I won. And saying that you have done something and thinking that the other person hasn't is the easy way to say "I haven't but I'm pretending I have." Prove you've got through calculus (not just to, anyone can get to it).
November 7, 200321 yr lol...noone's EVER really "through" calculus...unless you mean calc I at college level...which is only 130 level math...sorry, dude, they required more than THAT from me to get an A.S. in elec tech from DeVry (granted, it was APPLIED math, rather than theory)..but...what would you consider proof? definition of the UFT basic equasion in english, possibly? Or would a simple sine, cosine, or tangenital relational problem suffice...like maybe the "wolves and rabbits populational relation equasion" do it for you? They're requiring 40 credits of math from me to get my B.S. in cop sci at WWU despite the fact that I entered frosh year with math 231 equivalency, mate...they won't count credits from DeVry (or any other "vocational" school) as transferable...I'm currently enrolled in MATH356 to fulfill requirements...with a bunch of math majors, naturally... and working with 8 dimensional geometry problems for homework (geometry is SO much easier, since you can envision it, compared with theoretical maths) anyhow...tell me what you'd consider "proof"...or just post an equasion for me to solve, and I'll "prove" it for you :)
November 8, 200321 yr No thanks, N00b...your mom's the only person I know I could catch it from, and she's so fugly, I wouldn't touch her with YOUR dick (though I hear YOU don't have the same aversion to her that I do)... as for being a nigger...you think a porch monkey could actually handle the english language well enough to leave the long ass posts all over the place that I do? ROFL.
November 8, 200321 yr Oh, and you fucking nigger, learn to spell. Its Th3 No0b, not th3n00b not th3 n0ob, but Th3 No0b. Bitch get it straight
November 8, 200321 yr never occurred to you I did it on purpose? As in some three post 13 year old wannabe trying to flame me is going to do more than mildly amuse me? "go die fag"...how original...ooooooo, I'm raged! he flamed me, and called me "fag"...ROFL...go back to sucking mommy's tit, son..go 'way now, ya botha me Crack, I think he's upset because he couldn't understand 2/3 of any post I made...every time he ran into a word with more than two syllables, he lost the meaning of the sentence it was in :)
November 8, 200321 yr ROFL... you got it all wrong, boyo...I'm spic, red nigger (amerind), and pasty-white Celt...not an ounce of black in me, unless you count Black Irish...so pick your own damned cotton, I'm going down to the welfare office to pick up me check, then I'm goin down to the pub to drink it all up, thanks...keep working hard, so you can support me :)
November 9, 200321 yr lol...noone's EVER really "through" calculus...unless you mean calc I at college level...which is only 130 level math...sorry, dude, they required more than THAT from me to get an A.S. in elec tech from DeVry (granted, it was APPLIED math, rather than theory)..but...what would you consider proof? definition of the UFT basic equasion in english, possibly? Or would a simple sine, cosine, or tangenital relational problem suffice...like maybe the "wolves and rabbits populational relation equasion" do it for you? They're requiring 40 credits of math from me to get my B.S. in cop sci at WWU despite the fact that I entered frosh year with math 231 equivalency, mate...they won't count credits from DeVry (or any other "vocational" school) as transferable...I'm currently enrolled in MATH356 to fulfill requirements...with a bunch of math majors, naturally... and working with 8 dimensional geometry problems for homework (geometry is SO much easier, since you can envision it, compared with theoretical maths) anyhow...tell me what you'd consider "proof"...or just post an equasion for me to solve, and I'll "prove" it for you :) I see you've stopped arguing about the spoiler. Perhaps you've realized I won the argument? Here's one for you, pretty simple actually: Evaluate the integral: Easiest way to do type this out is this way 0 to 2^(1/2) dy 0 to 3y dx x^2+3y^2 to 8-x^2-y^2 dz in the order of dzdxdy Also, find the volume of this object.
November 9, 200321 yr I love supras. http://i7.ebayimg.com/03/i/00/d8/65/df_3.JPG http://i4.ebayimg.com/03/i/00/d8/00/28_3.JPG http://i4.ebayimg.com/03/i/00/d8/00/22_3.JPG
November 10, 200321 yr What did you get for the integral? I'll tell you if it matches after you tell me that.
November 11, 200321 yr NWA']Here's one for you, pretty simple actually: Evaluate the integral: Easiest way to do type this out is this way 0 to 2^(1/2) dy 0 to 3y dx x^2+3y^2 to 8-x^2-y^2 dz in the order of dzdxdy Also, find the volume of this object. where's the equasion for me to get my derivative from? without that, I can't get a valid integral...I had to assign an arbitrary value in order to calculate volume, as is, which is why I asked if it matched yours :)
