Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 132
Weight without Driver (KG) : 393
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 341.27
0 - 60 (Secs) : 3.78
0 - 100 (Secs) : 10.37
60 - 100 (Secs) : 6.59
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 12.25
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 108.67
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 12.15
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 110.01
|
| |
|
|
Bamford - I was wrong about the engine weight, I appologise about that.
I first used this forum in February 2004, and have always stuck to discussing cars. I admit that sometimes my opinions could be abbrasive, but if everyone on a forum agreed with each other, then it would be very boring. I have used the forum on and off, sometimes leaving for months at a time. Bamford has done the same I feel. But I have to protest at the accusations of 30 names, the libelous inference that I am some kind of cyber stalker. The "other stuff" which was "unpleasant", whatever it was had NOTHING to do with me. I might have posted things that you found to be in disagreement with your own opinions, but that was all. If anything more DID happen, it most certainly wasn't me. But I can see why you might think that, as you have displayed a worrying paranoid behaviour in which you think that any and every person who may or in some cases may not have disagreed with you is the same person. I myself thought that you were Boundary! for example. Has it ever occured to you that the different people you encounter on forums could be made up from the millions who use the internet rather than one person.
Just to clarify:
I am not the "30-namer" who you believe I am.
I was PatriotUK and latterly GRIP.
I am not a Cyber stalker.
I have no idea what the Corvette Story entails, but I have no doubt that it is a fabrication.
I offer you friendship - for the sake of this forum, as your accusations have turned it into an unpleasant place of late.
Once again, I am only GRIP, and whilst I may disagree with you on cars in the future, there is no malice intended, so stop applying any paranoid conspiracy theories to me.
|
| |
|
|
At the risk of sounding arguementative Noxide, Kerb weight includes the driver and fuel, and power to weight includes kerb and not dry weight so your figures are incorrect.
No manufacturer would publish performance figures that are for a car with an empty fuel tank and no driver!
|
| |
|
|
OKAY Grip, against my better judgement, i will rewind, as far as you are concerned. DON'T think that everyone believes all that stuff above though, you know and i know that there is much more to it than you admit. BUT, for the sake of the forum as you put it, i will rewind. You KNOW you lost not just the battle but the war, you KNOW that people got wise. You DO know a fair bit about cars, let's move on. ________________________________________________ Below that line just friendly car conversation.
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
The figures are not quite McLaren-esque then, (more in line 0-60 and 0-100, with a DB9), but are still hugely impressive for a tiny £3,800. Track times equal to a Caterham R500 are not to be sneezed at either.
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
Look, we both know about cars, are car enthusiasts and we are allowed to disagree. I draw the line at insults and these accusations though. They must stop. There is not more to it than I admit. I have not lost any "battle" or "war", what are you talking about? You should email me about the "other stuff" and I will gladly put you straight and help out in any way possible.
Lets stick to cars! (Not literally though)
|
| |
|
|
Let's get to know one another better, what do you drive and what were your last few cars, Grip? I know of one car we have both owned, but what have you been owning of late? Genuine question. I have a 2003 M3 CSL and a Honda CRV diesel on a 55-plate at the moment. Do you like either?
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
Disagree entirely, but move on.
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
Ok - will move on
|
| |
|
|
What's your current and recent wheels Grip?
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
GRIP, just so you know, those figures take into account the weight of a driver, half a tank of fuel and the RWD nature of the car.
|
| |
|
|
Heck, i think i have gone off this damn Westy now!!!!!!!!!!! 
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
To bring some light relief, i just got 2 private mails, both people saying "what did he say, tell me what did he say?". Oh dear, i dunno.......i await the mail with interest.
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
Going out for a nice Sunday lunch, nothing received. Whatever. 
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bamford: quote: Originally posted by biggbn: quote: Originally posted by Bamford:
A better explanation has just been sent privately to you.
REPLY to me.
Biggbn, i have/had no problem with you, but someone said to me last night that you have become just another person's puppet instead of being your own man and it looks rather like they could be right, unfortunately.
There WERE no bad mails, they were either funny circulars or offers to meet up, as hundreds of us do in various car circles very regularly.
If that sounds strange, well fine. The thirty eight car fanatics at the car meet i arranged last week are strange people in your book then! Whatever mate!
TVR T350C. 2 TVR Cerberas. 2 M3 CSLs. 4 Lancer Evos. 2 Porsche 911s. Just a few of those which went.
well i would like to think this individual would have the balls to say this to my face...as i dont suffer fools or sychophants gladly...jeez im sorry for not subscribing to the palmy and co fan club....i really MUST be a puppet and not have a mind of my own......pathetic....
MY opinion biggbn, is that you are a decent and fun guy, if i though different i would tell you so. Here or in person. It is how i am. BUT.............you are as capable of a mistake as the rest of us and have, indeed, made a couple recently. IMHO.
i will politely agree to disagree...well inasmuch as you have NO IDEA the mistakes iv made recently...but they have had nothin to do with car forums haha.....lets get on with discussing cars folks........ .....i find the 'projected' performance figures to be a tad unbelievable.....a stripped outcatrham racer with over 200hp 'only' gets to 60 in around 3 secs...i doubt very much the westie would do that.....if i recall contempory tests, a caterham with 1600cc 100hp ford engine did 60 in around 6 secs so id say mid to low 5's is a perfectly respectable time to be aiming for..... |
| |
|
|
I think the Toyota Supra is a better bet. Just have a look on eBay at some MK3's. LSD, etc, and a feasible road car, too.
Elementary, my dear Clarkson.
|
| |
|
|
biggbn, as far as the Westy goes, the acceleration figures are not ALL that important on a track car, corner speed is of more importance. In any event, lap times similar to a Caterham R500 are indeed impressive and would suggest to me good handling and braking, as well as a good ptw ratio. On the other subject, if you don't want people using a particular function, disconnect it or at least make it very clear to newcomers that you don't like people using it. Don't just ban people willy nilly, without a single warning, merely for contacting others using an available method. Make it completely clear that contact is frowned upon; until 200 posts/your face fits/you are one of the boys/whatever the criteria may be. Poor show, sorry.
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
totally agree about track car and 0-60 in general...it is a ridiculous yardstick to measure perfromance by....speed carried through corners and in gear acceleration are much more apt.......
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bamford:
Don't just ban people willy nilly, without a single warning, merely for contacting others using an available method.
Make it completely clear that contact is frowned upon; until 200 posts/your face fits/you are one of the boys/whatever the criteria may be.
Poor show, sorry.
last comment on this debacle as i seem to be the genrally accepted scapegoat for y'all inigmonous downfall....i dont know anyone on the other fr forum, or indeed this one...so to suggest its a jolly for the boys or your face has to fit is absolute nonsense..the other forum ran absolutely smoothly for months and all members have totally disparate views and tastes....i am familiar with many of the names on the forum and many of the ones on this one,,,have been for years....to my knowledge, unsolicited contact has never been a problem before now on either forum......cos it never happened before now....my last comment goes to nox....i really like you bro, i like your taste in cars and your unwaivering faith/loyalty to your kinda car.....wish you would, as you call on others to do, stand up and be counted on this one...it was you who started the whole unsolicited contact ball rolling and you were quite rightly a bit perturbed by being constantly bombarded with emails...i remeber the many posts on this matter on the other side..???...personally im glad y'all kissed and made up, but this burying your head in the sand is unbecoming and indeed unlike your previous outspoken posts...... |
| |
|
|
Biggbn, nice guy that you seem to be, you are totally out of order on this one and until you realise that and are big enough to accept you got it wrong, then you will continue to be barking up the wrong tree. Stop calling normal contact between people, interested in the same topic, 'unsolicited mail'. E Mail has replaced door bells, snail mail and telephones, to a huge extent. It is 2006. It is easier and more convenient to use E mail. Unless the mails contain something foul or threatening, there isn't a problem. End of. I repeat, you should never ban people until you have explained that you don't like members e- mailing one another. Or remove the ability to do it if it so terrible. I presume Palmy was banned for something equally as stupid, but no doubt you will call it 'his outrageous behaviour'. What, did he dare to have a view on politics or something which your mate didn't agree with? I like you as a forummer, biggbn and i know we would have a laugh if you attended one of my car meets, but you need to get a sense of proportion. People were mailed about car meetings and given some information thought to be important. Plus a few funny circulars. LIGHTEN UP. To ban someone for that is nothing short of pathetic. Palmy, Noxide and i all agree on this on you need to reflect on the whole thing. Nobody has done anything wrong, so you can't blame people when they come to the conclusion that the power thing is prevalent. Finally, when i signed in to BMWland today i had 4 personal mails. Three were asking about my forthcoming meetings and another wanted my opinion on the CSL. I was simply pleased they had bothered to take the time out to ask me, there's the difference. I replied within 30 minutes to all of them. How dare they? Writing to me without invitation! FFS biggbn. FFS.
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
Biggbn, Oli got me completely wrong and has accepted he did. You need to forget all that rubbish about what i might have been. I wasn't and i am not. OKAY? With the amount of rubbish on here a while back, i can totally understand the mistake. Like many, he had got the idea that i had loads of names and invented my cars. He now knows different. He accepts i am genuine and drive what i say i do. He has seen the many threads where people have commented on the enjoyable meetings i have arranged. We are meeting very soon and would have done ages ago, but for his car breaking down. Twice. Palmy, me and Noxide are meeting up soon. It will be fun. You need to forget about what Oli was once worried about. It wasn't the case, end of.
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
We agree about the Westy, it's a start! 
MY R400 SUPERLIGHT NOW HAS 241 BHP!
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bamford:
Biggbn, nice guy that you seem to be, you are totally out of order on this one and until you realise that and are big enough to accept you got it wrong, then you will continue to be barking up the wrong tree.
Stop calling normal contact between people, interested in the same topic, 'unsolicited mail'.
E Mail has replaced door bells, snail mail and telephones, to a huge extent. It is 2006. It is easier and more convenient to use E mail.
Unless the mails contain something foul or threatening, there isn't a problem. End of.
I repeat, you should never ban people until you have explained that you don't like members e- mailing one another. Or remove the ability to do it if it so terrible.
I presume Palmy was banned for something equally as stupid, but no doubt you will call it 'his outrageous behaviour'. What, did he dare to have a view on politics or something which your mate didn't agree with?
I like you as a forummer, biggbn and i know we would have a laugh if you attended one of my car meets, but you need to get a sense of proportion.
People were mailed about car meetings and given some information thought to be important. Plus a few funny circulars. LIGHTEN UP.
To ban someone for that is nothing short of pathetic.
Palmy, Noxide and i all agree on this on you need to reflect on the whole thing.
Nobody has done anything wrong, so you can't blame people when they come to the conclusion that the power thing is prevalent.
Finally, when i signed in to BMWland today i had 4 personal mails. Three were asking about my forthcoming meetings and another wanted my opinion on the CSL.
I was simply pleased they had bothered to take the time out to ask me, there's the difference.
I replied within 30 minutes to all of them.
How dare they? Writing to me without invitation!
FFS biggbn. FFS.
...as ever, i shall agree to disagree on this matter....is everyone now a happy bunny.....?? |
| |
|
|
Bamford, it's not Biggbn who calls the shots and is causing issues here. It's someone else.
|
| |
|
|
