mark kibort

Hey, we are all racers, like racing, have fast cars, want to be here to exchange information. Ill ask you politely. Please dont post unless you have something to contribute to the subject matter.

I would also appriciate that the insults stop. It just sounds childish.

You know what is funny, is how different all of you guys would be acting if we were all in a room, holding beers, face to face. Think about that next time you post your "cute" "witty" comments. And Bob, you know the visual I get of you. That guy that was in the James Brown band that listens for the breaks in the singing, and then says , "yeah" after every verse. Is that you ?

ok, back to the subject matter. Will two cars with the exact HP curve shapes accelerate at the same rate at any speed, any place on the track? (even though one has 50% more torque than the other at the engine?)

Why or why not?

Mk

Veloce Raptor

^^^ Yup. GhettoRacer, complete with massive projection. ^^^

Mark, I have no need to hurl insults your way. You are doing enough for both of us in that department by cloning GR. A casual observer might conclude that you are wearing some big-time insecurities on your sleeve.

I have contributed my observations, which you cannot stand because they differ from your own...so you feel the need (in literally every post you now make) to attempt to disparage me personally and professionally. And yet each time you do it, you cast an ever more indelible portrait of yourself....yet seem blind to this.

Sorry, bub, the joke's on you. I believe you will find that I--and all of the clients/students I am fortunate to coach--are amply aware of TQ and HP, and where each is to be exploited for faster lap times...and the results of that understanding are exemplified in the incredible on track results they exhibit. Again, you have my genuine sympathies that you are unable to be paid for your "expertise".

I also believe there are quite a few folks on here who I have helped in ways your snake oil illegal-for-racing Tornado could never dream of doing. And plenty here have helped me. What have YOU contributed, Mark? And by all means, keep lowering yourself by mentioning my post count, as if it's relevant.

Now, please respond (on cue) with 500 more words full of projection that attempt to disparage me personally and professionally, just like your 48 preceding posts and 6 PM's.

Veloce Raptor

Unclear. But it is definitely GR II.

deep_uv

Maybe the more complete quote from Hamlet is more appropriate.....

"My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. . . ."

William Shakespeare.

Bryan Watts

Oh jeez...this again.

Bull

Don't kid yourself Mark. You would be laughed out of the room for ruining a nice gathering of normal, beer drinking folks. I'm sure you have become very familiar with that experience!

Oh, and please don't waste our time with such ignorant posts as your last, where you tell all to stop with the "insults" then because you can't control your mouth yo hurl some yourself. See Mark, THAT is what makes you so laughable!

Bull

He sure does have a quick tally of all of his planned excuses for being a loser, no?

Veloce Raptor

I would say to anyone in person the exact same things I say online, good or bad, and have done so many times.

Bryan....it's lather/rinse/repeat day.

mark kibort

oh nothing Dave. I just go to track, run my races and drive home and play on the computer. sometimes I help folks that cant work on their cars and put new engines in their car for them, and if they want to change them to go faster, i help them again, up to 4 engines, and I dont charge them, because thats what guys i hang out with in the racing community do for other racers. I ride along with students and help them from crashing their cars and give them some 1 or 2 pointers they can buld on to be faster and safer that i pass on from some awesome folks that helped me. Oh yeah, i find ways to improve on our already well designed engines from the porsche factory , so they can make 50 to 100% more HP. Document all the gochas, so no one has to go through the expense or pain of the mistakes Ive made in the process. (not limited to clutches, engines, engine mods, ECU, tranmissions, wheels, tires, brake sytems upgrades, suspension, aero, etc etc) You know, things like that.

Yes, I have got a lot from this board, and i would hope that Ive helped more than ive been helped.

Now, why dont you in a calm collected instructor voice, tell us why two cars with the same HP and same shaped HP curve would produce anything less than the same torque at the rear wheels at any speed around a track. try and contain yourself to limit the insults. It's very telling.

mk

[QUOTE=Veloce Raptor;6268428I What have YOU contributed, Mark?
QUOTE]

Veloce Raptor

Again with the projection, Mark? Give it a rest.

As for your question, how is that in ANY way relevant to what started this mess: namely Des' query about which of two 400hp cars wuld be better on a road course? One with low TQ or one with high TQ?

Are you actually saying the low TQ one would be better on a road course? Because your 20,000,000 words posted so far on this topic--in two threads--seems to be arguing this.

I mean, SERIOUSLY, Mark: Des asked the time, and you have spent a week+ explaining how your watch was made.

mark kibort

Bob, thats funny, Im in those rooms on a regular basis, have had these conversations PHD'ed engineers as well as racers and friends and that hasnt happen yet. Hmm.

Listen, you will always be the "yeah guy " behind VR. So stop trying so hard.

mk

mark kibort

You still answer all the questions with a question. are you going to answer it?

If both cars that Des asked about had the same shape HP curves as the bMW and Caddy, (and you could magically make these cars equal in all other respects, which would have the advange and why?

Ill give you a hint and post the dyno runs if you want. If the low hp car had a flatter hp curve, then yes, it would be better in all areas of a road course. I had a 928 that had such a hp curve vs a stroker 6 liter. both had 300rwhp, but mine had a much flatter Hp curve, even though it was down near 75 ftlbs of torque peak.
thats all im going to give you as a hint. Des asked a question, I was trying to answer it with solid facts and physics.

Thats all.

mk


[QUOTE=Veloce Raptor;6268538]
namely Des' query about which of two 400hp cars wuld be better on a road course? One with low TQ or one with high TQ?

Are you actually saying the low TQ one would be better on a road course? Because your 20,000,000 words posted so far on this topic--in two threads--seems to be arguing this.

QUOTE]

deep_uv

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Albert Einstein

Bull

Never even met this VR guy Mark, so you can try to find another avenue for your insults because that one makes no sense.

Now, if you are done insulting me, can we move on to why you are SO impressed with the fact that you have conversations with "PHD'ed engineers"? Do you have any idea what my credentials are Mark? No, I didn't think so....all you want to do is hear yourself talk over, and over, and over, and over again!



You seem to have a need to find a way to demean me Mark. Are you feeling inferior and needing to find a way to bring me down to your simplistic level?

Bull

See Mark, you can only answer one question...over, and over, and over, and over again! If a person's question doesn't fit your rote, pat answer, you must rephrase it to fit your simplistic, standard answer. I'm taking a further discount you you personally Mark, as you continue to show that unless you can use the terms "if" and "magically", you are lost!