It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.Sounds like a classic case of making a change just to ... make a change?
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 8:21:34 AM UTC-5, build wrote:AIUI Pirelli began asking for this some time ago, as the configuration
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile
tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
Sounds like a classic case of making a change just to ... make a
change?
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
...why do the German touring cars use low profile tires?
...why do LeMans prototypes use low profile tires?
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile
tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know
the Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a low-profile some
years ago. At Philip Island we lost 3 seconds a lap. I know with the
aero changes the cars were supposed to be faster but the loss from
the tyres will be difficult to gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
drunk Aussie troll wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profileHow many cars do you see on the road with the same profile as an F1
tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
car?
Your statement is pure ignorance.
As some of you know
the Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a low-profile some
years ago. At Philip Island we lost 3 seconds a lap. I know with the
aero changes the cars were supposed to be faster but the loss from
the tyres will be difficult to gain back.
They wanted to slow the cars by up to 5 seconds for the start of the
season. Those in the know reckon it will be closer to just 0.5 seconds. Ferrari speculate that they will be faster than 2021 on some of the
high speed circuits while much slower on street tracks.
The aero changes were not supposed to be faster.
Testing will be very interesting....and rain is wet.
1 out of 3; well done.
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:21:34 AM UTC-8, build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
Do the new tires have softer or harder sidewalls?
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain back.
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile
tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile
tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like
many higher profile road cars) and the front a higher AR at 305/86 R18
(very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race
tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be
faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain
back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race
tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be
faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain
back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race
tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be
faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain
back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race
tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be
faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain
back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the wheels, the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie lower profile) to address lateral flexing issues.
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the wheels,
the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie lower profile) to
address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of as a high performance tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes tires for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires are going
to be. So there's more commonality in the design problem.
On 1/27/2022 5:30 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the wheels,
the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie lower profile) to
address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of as a high
performance tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes tires for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires are
going to be. So there's more commonality in the design problem.
PirellirCOs Formula 1 boss Mario Isola:-a "We are obviously very happy as moving to an 18-inch tire is good for our technology transfer from race
to road, because the sizes are a lot more relevant compared to the
13-inch."
https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a38593154/why-formula-1-18-inch-tires-expect/
Pretty much what I posted in this thread five days ago.
Would that diameter be 18"?
I don't know.
On 2022-01-27 2:32 p.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/27/2022 5:30 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the wheels,
the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie lower profile) to
address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of as a high
performance tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes tires for... >>
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires are
going to be. So there's more commonality in the design problem.
PirellirCOs Formula 1 boss Mario Isola: "We are obviously very happy as moving to an 18-inch tire is good for our technology transfer from race
to road, because the sizes are a lot more relevant compared to the 13-inch."
https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a38593154/why-formula-1-18-inch-tires-expect/
No. They would keep the sidewall. Take away the flex of the sidewall and it breaks traction. As Pirelli have said the new tyres are 4 seconds slower ! That's Pirelli saying that, not me.Pretty much what I posted in this thread five days ago.
There's no doubt in my mind that if there were no rule mandating a wheel diameter, F1 would be using large diameters.
Would that diameter be 18"?
...You'd be very wrong. Ask any racing engineer.
I don't know.
But given that no series that isn't limited by regulation to 13" runs
13" rims...
...I'm pretty sure it would be larger.
:-)--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race
tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be
faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain
back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the wheels,
the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie lower profile)
to address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of as a high performance tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes tires
for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires are
going to be. So there's more commonality in the design problem.
As Pirelli have said the new tyres are 4
seconds slower ! That's Pirelli saying that, not me.
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race
tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be
faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain
back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the wheels,
the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie lower profile)
to address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of as a high
performance tire.
How do the profiles compare?
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes tires
for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires are
going to be. So there's more commonality in the design problem.
Give some examples.
You're joking.
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in industrial physics and systems engineering?
On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 10:25:35 AM UTC+11, Alan wrote:Pretty much what I posted in this thread five days ago.
On 2022-01-27 2:32 p.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/27/2022 5:30 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower
low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous
fashion.
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the
wheels, the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie
lower profile) to address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of as
a high performance tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes
tires for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires
are going to be. So there's more commonality in the design
problem.
PirellirCOs Formula 1 boss Mario Isola: "We are obviously very
happy as moving to an 18-inch tire is good for our technology
transfer from race to road, because the sizes are a lot more
relevant compared to the 13-inch."
https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a38593154/why-formula-1-18-inch-tires-expect/
There's no doubt in my mind that if there were no rule mandating a
wheel diameter, F1 would be using large diameters.
Would that diameter be 18"?
No. They would keep the sidewall. Take away the flex of the sidewall
and it breaks traction. As Pirelli have said the new tyres are 4
seconds slower ! That's Pirelli saying that, not me.
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement. Any physicist
or engineer will tell you the same. Only a fool would disagree.
I've driven on both on the same car. The low profile were a real
bitch and needed a very different, very gentle, approach.
...
I don't know.
But given that no series that isn't limited by regulation to 13"
runs 13" rims...
...I'm pretty sure it would be larger.
You'd be very wrong. Ask any racing engineer.
I find it hilarious
I challenge anyone
On 2022-01-28 2:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race
tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be
faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain
back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the
wheels, the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie
lower profile) to address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of as a
high performance tire.
How do the profiles compare?
What do you mean?
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes tires
for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires are
going to be. So there's more commonality in the design problem.
Give some examples.
You're joking. Seriously?
Pirelli has said precisely this.
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in
industrial physics and systems engineering?
I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is some magic number
with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that uses 13" rims
that isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Tell me which racing engineers you asked to form your opinion first.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 2:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race
tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be
faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain
back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the
wheels, the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie
lower profile) to address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of as a
high performance tire.
How do the profiles compare?
What do you mean?
You know what a tyre profile is?
Have you never bought tyres?
Maybe it's different in Canada. Let me check. No, it's the same.
Let me try again. How do the ratio's compare? is that easier?
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes tires
for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires are
going to be. So there's more commonality in the design problem.
Give some examples.
You're joking. Seriously?
Pirelli has said precisely this.
So you can't. Nevermind then.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in
industrial physics and systems engineering?
I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is some magic number
with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that uses 13" rims
that isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Well there's the rub.
Which road racing classes do not specify tyres?
That's where you start.
On 2022-01-28 11:41 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in
industrial physics and systems engineering?
I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is some magic
number with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that uses 13" rims
that isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Well there's the rub.
Which road racing classes do not specify tyres?
There are lots of classes that don't specify tires.
Lots have moved to a spec tire
in an effort to control COST, but the
size of the wheels and tires that are used hasn't changed from when
it was a free choice.
All the top LeMans classes specify a MAXIMUM wheel diameter of 18"...
And the tires aren't specified.
That's where you start.
If it were true...
...but it isn't.
On 2022-01-28 11:40 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 2:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower
low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous
fashion. As some of you know the Porsche's went from a
proper race tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At
Philip Island we lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to
be faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult
to gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the
wheels, the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie
lower profile) to address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of
as a high performance tire.
How do the profiles compare?
What do you mean?
You know what a tyre profile is?
Yes, but you didn't say "How do the tire profiles compare?" now did
you?
Have you never bought tyres?
Maybe it's different in Canada. Let me check. No, it's the same.
Let me try again. How do the ratio's compare? is that easier?
You mean "aspect ratio", right?
Well let's look.
I'll lift this text, because I can't see any point in reinventing the
wheel (see what I did there? EfyA):
'The new tire sizes for F1 starting in 2022 are 305/720R18 and
405/720R18. That's the equivalent (more or less) to 305/45R18 and
405/30R18.'
And here's the first LMP1 spec I came across:
'Front tyres 31/71-18
Rear tyres 31/71-18'
<https://toyotagazooracing.com/wec/cars/2017/>
Translated, that's 310/710R18...
...or almost the same size as the F1 front tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes
tires for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires
are going to be. So there's more commonality in the design
problem.
Give some examples.
You're joking. Seriously?
Pirelli has said precisely this.
So you can't. Nevermind then.
I can and just did.
But do you deny that Pirelli said that?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 11:41 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in
industrial physics and systems engineering?
I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is some magic
number with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that uses 13" rims
that isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Well there's the rub.
Which road racing classes do not specify tyres?
There are lots of classes that don't specify tires.
Lots have moved to a spec tire
Quite.
in an effort to control COST, but the
size of the wheels and tires that are used hasn't changed from when
it was a free choice.
So, give some examples.
<https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p1-hybrid.pdf>
All the top LeMans classes specify a MAXIMUM wheel diameter of 18"...
<https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p1-non-hybrid.pdf>
<https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p2-homologated-in-2017.pdf>
And the tires aren't specified.
So, what do they use?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 11:40 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 2:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower
low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous
fashion. As some of you know the Porsche's went from a
proper race tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At
Philip Island we lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to
be faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult
to gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the
wheels, the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie
lower profile) to address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of
as a high performance tire.
How do the profiles compare?
What do you mean?
You know what a tyre profile is?
Yes, but you didn't say "How do the tire profiles compare?" now did
you?
Lol, what is the discussion about?
Stop being a fuckwit for two minutes.
Have you never bought tyres?
Maybe it's different in Canada. Let me check. No, it's the same.
Let me try again. How do the ratio's compare? is that easier?
You mean "aspect ratio", right?
Well let's look.
I'll lift this text, because I can't see any point in reinventing the
wheel (see what I did there? EfyA):
'The new tire sizes for F1 starting in 2022 are 305/720R18 and
405/720R18. That's the equivalent (more or less) to 305/45R18 and
405/30R18.'
And here's the first LMP1 spec I came across:
Not a road tyre.
"It now matches more with what their customers think of
as a high performance tire."
So what did you mean by that?
'Front tyres 31/71-18
Rear tyres 31/71-18'
<https://toyotagazooracing.com/wec/cars/2017/>
Translated, that's 310/710R18...
Translated to what? garbage?
...or almost the same size as the F1 front tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes
tires for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires
are going to be. So there's more commonality in the design
problem.
Give some examples.
You're joking. Seriously?
Pirelli has said precisely this.
So you can't. Nevermind then.
I can and just did.
Nope. But go ahead.
But do you deny that Pirelli said that?
?
On 2022-01-28 1:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 11:41 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the
change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in industrial physics and systems engineering?
I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is some magic
number with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that uses 13"
rims that isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Well there's the rub.
Which road racing classes do not specify tyres?
There are lots of classes that don't specify tires.
Lots have moved to a spec tire
Quite.
in an effort to control COST, but the
size of the wheels and tires that are used hasn't changed from
when it was a free choice.
So, give some examples.
All the top LeMans classes specify a MAXIMUM wheel diameter of
18"...
And the tires aren't specified.
So, what do they use?
I don't know.
The point is that they're not specced to any particular tire.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 1:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:<https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p1-hybrid.pdf>
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 11:41 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the
change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in
industrial physics and systems engineering?
I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is some magic
number with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that uses 13"
rims that isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Well there's the rub.
Which road racing classes do not specify tyres?
There are lots of classes that don't specify tires.
Lots have moved to a spec tire
Quite.
in an effort to control COST, but the
size of the wheels and tires that are used hasn't changed from
when it was a free choice.
So, give some examples.
All the top LeMans classes specify a MAXIMUM wheel diameter of
18"...
<https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p1-non-hybrid.pdf>
<https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p2-homologated-in-2017.pdf>
And the tires aren't specified.
So, what do they use?
I don't know.
The point is that they're not specced to any particular tire.
...and you don't know who specified 18" or why? It's not as if they are
an off the shelf product. Someone has to make them.
On 2022-01-28 1:18 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 11:40 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 2:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on
slower low profile tyres simply to go with a
ridiculous fashion. As some of you know the
Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a
low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap. I know with the aero changes
the cars were supposed to be faster but the loss
from the tyres will be difficult to gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier
for the viewers to associate the pirellis to actual
road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on
the wheels, the tyres now having a reduced-height
sidewall (ie lower profile) to address lateral flexing
issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think
of as a high performance tire.
How do the profiles compare?
What do you mean?
You know what a tyre profile is?
Yes, but you didn't say "How do the tire profiles compare?" now
did you?
Lol, what is the discussion about?
Stop being a fuckwit for two minutes.
Have you never bought tyres?
Maybe it's different in Canada. Let me check. No, it's the same.
Let me try again. How do the ratio's compare? is that easier?
You mean "aspect ratio", right?
Well let's look.
I'll lift this text, because I can't see any point in reinventing
the wheel (see what I did there? EfyA):
'The new tire sizes for F1 starting in 2022 are 305/720R18 and 405/720R18. That's the equivalent (more or less) to 305/45R18 and 405/30R18.'
And here's the first LMP1 spec I came across:
Not a road tyre.
"It now matches more with what their customers think of
as a high performance tire."
So what did you mean by that?
"Stop being a fuckwit for two minutes."
'Front tyres 31/71-18
Rear tyres 31/71-18'
<https://toyotagazooracing.com/wec/cars/2017/>
Translated, that's 310/710R18...
Translated to what? garbage?
Translated to values in millimetres rather than centimetres.
"Stop being a fuckwit for two minutes."
...or almost the same size as the F1 front tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes
tires for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new
tires are going to be. So there's more commonality in the
design problem.
Give some examples.
You're joking. Seriously?
Pirelli has said precisely this.
So you can't. Nevermind then.
I can and just did.
Nope. But go ahead.
I just showed that Le Mans cars are using tires almost precisely the
same size as F1's front tires.
In what way is that not what you wanted?
But do you deny that Pirelli said that?
?
Do you deny that Pirelli has said that F1's new tires sizes are more
relevant to the design of their other high performance tires?
On 2022-01-28 1:32 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 1:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 11:41 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the
change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30
years in industrial physics and systems engineering?
I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is some
magic number with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that uses
13" rims that isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Well there's the rub.
Which road racing classes do not specify tyres?
There are lots of classes that don't specify tires.
Lots have moved to a spec tire
Quite.
in an effort to control COST, but the
size of the wheels and tires that are used hasn't changed from
when it was a free choice.
So, give some examples.
All the top LeMans classes specify a MAXIMUM wheel diameter of
18"...
And the tires aren't specified.
So, what do they use?
I don't know.
The point is that they're not specced to any particular tire.
...and you don't know who specified 18" or why? It's not as if they
are an off the shelf product. Someone has to make them.
How does that effect anything?
The size is specced to a MAXIMUM, so anyone who wanted to use a
smaller size would be free to do so...
...but no one does.
On 2022-01-28 1:18 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Do you deny that Pirelli has said that F1's new tires sizes are more
relevant to the design of their other high performance tires?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 1:18 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 11:40 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 2:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on
slower low profile tyres simply to go with a
ridiculous fashion. As some of you know the
Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a
low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap. I know with the aero changes
the cars were supposed to be faster but the loss
from the tyres will be difficult to gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier
for the viewers to associate the pirellis to actual
road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on
the wheels, the tyres now having a reduced-height
sidewall (ie lower profile) to address lateral flexing
issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think
of as a high performance tire.
How do the profiles compare?
What do you mean?
You know what a tyre profile is?
Yes, but you didn't say "How do the tire profiles compare?" now
did you?
Lol, what is the discussion about?
Stop being a fuckwit for two minutes.
Have you never bought tyres?
Maybe it's different in Canada. Let me check. No, it's the same.
Let me try again. How do the ratio's compare? is that easier?
You mean "aspect ratio", right?
Well let's look.
I'll lift this text, because I can't see any point in reinventing
the wheel (see what I did there? EfyA):
'The new tire sizes for F1 starting in 2022 are 305/720R18 and
405/720R18. That's the equivalent (more or less) to 305/45R18 and
405/30R18.'
And here's the first LMP1 spec I came across:
Not a road tyre.
"It now matches more with what their customers think of
as a high performance tire."
So what did you mean by that?
"Stop being a fuckwit for two minutes."
So you don't know what you meant or are unable to elaborate proffering
to confirm your "fuckwit" status.
Try again. What do you mean by "what their customers think of as a high performance tire." You had something in mind when you wrote that but it doesn't relate well to the rest of your post, so explain "what their customers think of as a high performance tire."
'Front tyres 31/71-18
Rear tyres 31/71-18'
<https://toyotagazooracing.com/wec/cars/2017/>
Translated, that's 310/710R18...
Translated to what? garbage?
Translated to values in millimetres rather than centimetres.
"Stop being a fuckwit for two minutes."
We are talking tyre profile and you have yet to provide any comparison
of profile.
Who is being the fuckwit?
...or almost the same size as the F1 front tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes
tires for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new
tires are going to be. So there's more commonality in the
design problem.
Give some examples.
You're joking. Seriously?
Pirelli has said precisely this.
So you can't. Nevermind then.
I can and just did.
Nope. But go ahead.
I just showed that Le Mans cars are using tires almost precisely the
same size as F1's front tires.
In what way is that not what you wanted?
But do you deny that Pirelli said that?
?
Do you deny that Pirelli has said that F1's new tires sizes are more
relevant to the design of their other high performance tires?
Why would I, were you lying, again?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 1:32 p.m., Bigbird wrote:<https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p1-hybrid.pdf>
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 1:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 11:41 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the
change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30
years in industrial physics and systems engineering?
I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is some
magic number with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that uses
13" rims that isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Well there's the rub.
Which road racing classes do not specify tyres?
There are lots of classes that don't specify tires.
Lots have moved to a spec tire
Quite.
in an effort to control COST, but the
size of the wheels and tires that are used hasn't changed from
when it was a free choice.
So, give some examples.
All the top LeMans classes specify a MAXIMUM wheel diameter of
18"...
<https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p1-non-hybrid.pdf>
<https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p2-homologated-in-2017.pdf>
And the tires aren't specified.
So, what do they use?
I don't know.
The point is that they're not specced to any particular tire.
...and you don't know who specified 18" or why? It's not as if they
are an off the shelf product. Someone has to make them.
How does that effect anything?
If they tyre is not available they can't use it, can they.
The size is specced to a MAXIMUM, so anyone who wanted to use a
smaller size would be free to do so...
...but no one does.
Say a team wanted to use a smaller tyre where would they get them?
Who actually specifies the tyre?
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile
tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like
many higher profile road cars) and the front a higher AR at 305/86 R18
(very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
Why are you arguing this, fuckwit?
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in industrial physics and systems engineering?
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
As for behavior, I have shocking news:
Physicists can be arrogant. - Mike Tamor
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in industrial physics and systems engineering?
I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is some magic number
with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that uses 13" rims that
isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Who said 13" was a *magic number* ?
I can only see you saying that.
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 3:48:48 AM UTC+11, Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in industrial
physics and systems engineering?
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
As for behavior, I have shocking news:
Physicists can be arrogant. - Mike Tamor
Then you *should* be able to work it out. It's not difficult.
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:22:25 AM UTC+11, Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is some magic number
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in industrial
physics and systems engineering?
with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that uses 13" rims that
isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Who said 13" was a *magic number* ?
I can only see you saying that.
You're implying it.
Let me ask you:
Would 14" rims work better or worse than the 13" rims for F1?
How about 15"?
16?
17?
18?
On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
You're implying it.
Let me ask you:
Would 14" rims work better or worse than the 13" rims for F1?
How about 15"?
16?
17?
18?
deflect. rinse. repeat
On 2022-01-27 7:02 a.m., rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower lowAs far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race
tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be
faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain
back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
Not quite.
Consumer fashion follows what works in racing and high performance cars...
...but then exaggerates.
So consumers saw the cambers being run on racing cars...
...and now we have "stanced" cars with ridiculous negative camber.
That the enthusiasts have overdone it doesn't mean that the negative
camber you see on (say) an Indycar doesn't work.
It's the same with low profile tires.
Getting the best grip out of a tire is a battle between two factors
that are in opposition to each other with respect to inflation
pressure.
The nature of rubber/pavement friction is such that lower pressures
mean more grip due to a larger, lower pressure contact patch.
But lower pressures mean less overall stiffness of the tire carcass...
...which leads to the more distortion of the contact patch...
...which means a smaller contact patch...
...and less grip.
One of the ways to change the balance is to make the carcass stiffer.
Which you can do by making the sidewalls shorter... ...and (to keep
the overall diameter the same) the wheel bigger.
Can you overdo it? Of course.
But they idea that 13" is some sort of automatic "ideal"...
...no.
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the wheels,
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race
tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be
faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain
back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie lower profile) to
address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of as a high performance tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes tires for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires are
going to be. So there's more commonality in the design problem.
Alan <nope@nope.com> writes:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to fit on the wheels,
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race
tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be
faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain
back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why they're
switching to 18-inch wheels is so that it's easier for the
viewers to associate the pirellis to actual road tyres.
the tyres now having a reduced-height sidewall (ie lower profile) to
address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers think of as a high
performance tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli makes tires for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's new tires are
going to be. So there's more commonality in the design problem.
So they're trying to hit two birds with one stone?
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like
many higher profile road cars) and the front a higher AR at 305/86
R18 (very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
On 2022-01-28 1:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 1:32 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 1:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 11:41 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion
statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for
the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30
years in industrial physics and systems
engineering?
I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is
some magic number with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that
uses 13" rims that isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Well there's the rub.
Which road racing classes do not specify tyres?
There are lots of classes that don't specify tires.
Lots have moved to a spec tire
Quite.
in an effort to control COST, but the
size of the wheels and tires that are used hasn't changed
from when it was a free choice.
So, give some examples.
All the top LeMans classes specify a MAXIMUM wheel
diameter of 18"...
And the tires aren't specified.
So, what do they use?
I don't know.
The point is that they're not specced to any particular tire.
...and you don't know who specified 18" or why? It's not as if
they are an off the shelf product. Someone has to make them.
How does that effect anything?
If they tyre is not available they can't use it, can they.
The tire manufacturers will build whatever you'll pay for.
The size is specced to a MAXIMUM, so anyone who wanted to use a
smaller size would be free to do so...
...but no one does.
Say a team wanted to use a smaller tyre where would they get them?
Who actually specifies the tyre?
The designer.
Why are you arguing this, fuckwit?
The fact of the matter is that racing tires have migrated from
narrow, high aspect ratio, to wide and very low aspect ratio.
F1 only kept using 13" wheels because the rules prevented them from
going bigger.
On 2022-01-28 6:05 p.m., texas gate wrote:
On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
You're implying it.
Let me ask you:
Would 14" rims work better or worse than the 13" rims for F1?
How about 15"?
16?
17?
18?
deflect. rinse. repeat
You're very dim, and I should ignore you, but just this once:
There are only 3 possibilities:
1. 13" is the perfect size.
2. The perfect size is larger.
3. The perfect size is smaller.
On 2022-01-28 1:49 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 1:18 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 11:40 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 2:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-27 2:23 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2022 4:02 am, rtr wrote:
build <buildy@gmail.com> writes:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on
slower low profile tyres simply to go with a
ridiculous fashion. As some of you know the
Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a
low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we
lost 3 seconds a lap. I know with the aero
changes the cars were supposed to be faster but
the loss from the tyres will be difficult to
gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
As far as I know, one of the main reasons why
they're switching to 18-inch wheels is so that
it's easier for the viewers to associate the
pirellis to actual road tyres.
I thought is was to enable decent sized tyres to
fit on the wheels, the tyres now having a
reduced-height sidewall (ie lower profile) to
address lateral flexing issues.
I think Pirelli wanted this for a couple of reasons:
Yes. It now matches more with what their customers
think of as a high performance tire.
How do the profiles compare?
What do you mean?
You know what a tyre profile is?
Yes, but you didn't say "How do the tire profiles compare?"
now did you?
Lol, what is the discussion about?
Stop being a fuckwit for two minutes.
Have you never bought tyres?
Maybe it's different in Canada. Let me check. No, it's the
same.
Let me try again. How do the ratio's compare? is that
easier?
You mean "aspect ratio", right?
Well let's look.
I'll lift this text, because I can't see any point in
reinventing the wheel (see what I did there? EfyA):
'The new tire sizes for F1 starting in 2022 are 305/720R18 and 405/720R18. That's the equivalent (more or less) to 305/45R18
and 405/30R18.'
And here's the first LMP1 spec I came across:
Not a road tyre.
"It now matches more with what their customers think of
as a high performance tire."
So what did you mean by that?
"Stop being a fuckwit for two minutes."
So you don't know what you meant or are unable to elaborate
proffering to confirm your "fuckwit" status.
Try again. What do you mean by "what their customers think of as a
high performance tire." You had something in mind when you wrote
that but it doesn't relate well to the rest of your post, so
explain "what their customers think of as a high performance tire."
'Front tyres 31/71-18
Rear tyres 31/71-18'
<https://toyotagazooracing.com/wec/cars/2017/>
Translated, that's 310/710R18...
Translated to what? garbage?
Translated to values in millimetres rather than centimetres.
"Stop being a fuckwit for two minutes."
We are talking tyre profile and you have yet to provide any
comparison of profile.
Who is being the fuckwit?
Oh... ...you're not knowledgeable enough to realize that:
305/720R18
Gives you the exact same information as:
305/43R18
That is the F1 front tire re-written as section width, aspect ratio
and wheel diameter instead of the more common racing usage of section
width, overall diameter and wheel diameter.
The numbers for the Toyota LeMans car become
310/41R18
So the two tires are very nearly the same "profile".
So the fuckwit remains you.
...or almost the same size as the F1 front tire.
But also, all the other high-end series that Pirelli
makes tires for...
...they use tires that are much more like what F1's
new tires are going to be. So there's more
commonality in the design problem.
Give some examples.
You're joking. Seriously?
Pirelli has said precisely this.
So you can't. Nevermind then.
I can and just did.
Nope. But go ahead.
I just showed that Le Mans cars are using tires almost precisely
the same size as F1's front tires.
In what way is that not what you wanted?
No answer.
Got it.
But do you deny that Pirelli said that?
?
Do you deny that Pirelli has said that F1's new tires sizes are
more relevant to the design of their other high performance tires?
Why would I, were you lying, again?
I notice that's not actually an answer.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 1:18 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Do you deny that Pirelli has said that F1's new tires sizes are more relevant to the design of their other high performance tires?
I hadn't considered that you might be fabricating but now that you
suggest it perhaps you should provide a cite as I don't recall reading
of them saying that.
I am pretty sure I have only read about claimed relevancy to road
tyres.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like
many higher profile road cars) and the front a higher AR at 305/86
R18 (very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
On 2022-01-28 5:26 p.m., build wrote:
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:22:25 AM UTC+11, Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 8:48 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:I find it hilarious that people believe that 13" is some magic number
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.
As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.
Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in industrial >>> physics and systems engineering?
with respect to wheel diameter.
I challenge anyone to show a road racing class that uses 13" rims that
isn't doing so because it's a rule.
Who said 13" was a *magic number* ?
I can only see you saying that.
You're implying it.
Let me ask you:--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
Would 14" rims work better or worse than the 13" rims for F1?
How about 15"?
16?
17?
18?
On 2022-01-28 5:25 p.m., build wrote:
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 3:48:48 AM UTC+11, Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in industrial >> physics and systems engineering?
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
As for behavior, I have shocking news:
Physicists can be arrogant. - Mike Tamor
Then you *should* be able to work it out. It's not difficult.
It's really not difficult to notice that no high performance cars...
Race or road use 13" wheels.
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 12:51:17 PM UTC+11, Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-28 5:25 p.m., build wrote:
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 3:48:48 AM UTC+11, Mark Jackson wrote: >>>> On 1/28/2022 3:12 AM, build wrote:
These tyres are nothing more than a fashion statement.As I've been pointing out that's not the reason for the change.
Any physicist or engineer will tell you the same.Did I mention my three degrees in physics, or my 30 years in industrial >>>> physics and systems engineering?
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
As for behavior, I have shocking news:
Physicists can be arrogant. - Mike Tamor
Then you *should* be able to work it out. It's not difficult.
It's really not difficult to notice that no high performance cars...
Race or road use 13" wheels.
Which ones are as fast as 2021 F1 cars.
Are you saying that F1 cars are faster BECAUSE of 13" wheels?
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65 R18
(like many higher profile road cars) and the front a higher AR
at 305/86 R18 (very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter) as
305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the overall diameter
(720) subtracting the wheel diameter (which you convert to
millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65 R18
(like many higher profile road cars) and the front a higher AR
at 305/86 R18 (very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter) as
305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the overall diameter
(720) subtracting the wheel diameter (which you convert to
millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65 R18
(like many higher profile road cars) and the front a higher AR
at 305/86 R18 (very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter) as
305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the overall diameter
(720) subtracting the wheel diameter (which you convert to
millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65 R18
(like many higher profile road cars) and the front a higher AR
at 305/86 R18 (very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter) as
305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the overall diameter
(720) subtracting the wheel diameter (which you convert to
millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want road-relevance they don't use nomenclature
that buyers of road car tyres understand).
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower
low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65
R18 (like many higher profile road cars) and the front a
higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much higher profile than most
road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the overall
diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter (which you convert
to millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want road-relevance
they don't use nomenclature that buyers of road car tyres understand).
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower
low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65
R18 (like many higher profile road cars) and the front a
higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much higher profile than most
road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter) as
305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the overall
diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter (which you convert
to millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want road-relevance
they don't use nomenclature that buyers of road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I was expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated that I realised
that the width of the tyre on an F1 car means that for a similar
profile the sidewall is proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres but more like
the tyres on van the I use for the dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get a 16" rim
so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road car tyre (say
a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or to look like a 225/40 R19
the rims would have to be another inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side they do not
resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all.
On 1/02/2022 5:57 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65 R18
(like many higher profile road cars) and the front a higher AR
at 305/86 R18 (very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter) as
305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the overall diameter
(720) subtracting the wheel diameter (which you convert to
millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want road-relevance
they don't use nomenclature that buyers of road car tyres understand).
.... and..... I just realised I could have simply halved your sidewall
to width ratios Bigbird to come up with the figures that I painstakingly calculated.
Yup!
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on
slower low profile tyres simply to go with a
ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a
405/65 R18 (like many higher profile road cars) and the
front a higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much higher
profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter)
as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the overall
diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter (which you
convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking
ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want
road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that buyers of road
car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I was
expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated that I
realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car means that for a
similar profile the sidewall is proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres but more
like the tyres on van the I use for the dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get a 16"
rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road car tyre
(say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or to look like a
225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side they do not
resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on
slower low profile tyres simply to go with a
ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a
405/65 R18 (like many higher profile road cars) and the
front a higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much higher
profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter)
as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the overall
diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter (which you
convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking
ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want
road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that buyers of road
car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I was
expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated that I
realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car means that for a
similar profile the sidewall is proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres but more
like the tyres on van the I use for the dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get a 16"
rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road car tyre
(say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or to look like a
225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side they do not
resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on
slower low profile tyres simply to go with a
ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a
405/65 R18 (like many higher profile road cars) and
the front a higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much
higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall
diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the
overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter
(which you convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then you
divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want
road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that buyers of road
car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I was
expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated that I
realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car means that for
a similar profile the sidewall is proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres but
more like the tyres on van the I use for the dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get a
16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road car
tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or to look
like a 225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another inch bigger
than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side they do
not resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the technical information about F1 doesn't understand something so basic as how
racing tire sizes are designated and how it relates to the way that
road tire sizes are called out.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on
slower low profile tyres simply to go with a
ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a
405/65 R18 (like many higher profile road cars) and
the front a higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much
higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall
diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the
overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter
(which you convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then you
divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking
ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want
road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that buyers of road
car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I was
expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated that I
realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car means that for
a similar profile the sidewall is proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres but
more like the tyres on van the I use for the dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get a
16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road car
tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or to look
like a 225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another inch bigger
than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side they do
not resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the technical
information about F1 doesn't understand something so basic as how
racing tire sizes are designated and how it relates to the way that
road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on reality
and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the last few
days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well beyond the
scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the tyre profile referred to and from the way you have been writing and how long it took
you to pick up on my error (despite spending your life on these groups)
it doesn't appear you knew any better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently but don't
let it define you.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on
slower low profile tyres simply to go with a
ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a
405/65 R18 (like many higher profile road cars) and
the front a higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much
higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall
diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the
overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter
(which you convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then you
divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking
ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want
road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that buyers of road
car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I was
expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated that I
realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car means that for
a similar profile the sidewall is proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres but
more like the tyres on van the I use for the dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get a
16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road car
tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or to look
like a 225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another inch bigger
than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side they do
not resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the technical
information about F1 doesn't understand something so basic as how
racing tire sizes are designated and how it relates to the way that
road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on reality
and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the last few
days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well beyond the
scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the tyre profile referred to and from the way you have been writing and how long it took
you to pick up on my error (despite spending your life on these groups)
it doesn't appear you knew any better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently but don't
let it define you.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on
slower low profile tyres simply to go with a
ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a
405/65 R18 (like many higher profile road cars) and
the front a higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much
higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall
diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the
overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter
(which you convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then you
divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a fucking
ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want
road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that buyers of road
car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I was
expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated that I
realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car means that for
a similar profile the sidewall is proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres but
more like the tyres on van the I use for the dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get a
16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road car
tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or to look
like a 225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another inch bigger
than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side they do
not resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the technical
information about F1 doesn't understand something so basic as how
racing tire sizes are designated and how it relates to the way that
road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on reality
and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the last few
days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well beyond the
scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the tyre profile referred to and from the way you have been writing and how long it took
you to pick up on my error (despite spending your life on these groups)
it doesn't appear you knew any better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently but don't
let it define you.
If you had any class, you'd apologize.
If you had any class, you'd apologize.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd3f1yr7c1qlu3/IMG_4687.jpeg?dl=0>
On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 3:31:52 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd3f1yr7c1qlu3/IMG_4687.jpeg?dl=0>
are you 12 years old?
On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put
on slower low profile tyres simply to go with
a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre
is a 405/65 R18 (like many higher profile road
cars) and the front a higher AR at 305/86 R18
(very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall
diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the
overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter
(which you convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then you
divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a
fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that buyers of
road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I was expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated
that I realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car
means that for a similar profile the sidewall is
proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres
but more like the tyres on van the I use for the dogs.
215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get
a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road
car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or
to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another
inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side they
do not resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the
technical information about F1 doesn't understand something so
basic as how racing tire sizes are designated and how it relates
to the way that road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on reality
and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the last
few days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well beyond
the scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the tyre
profile referred to and from the way you have been writing and how
long it took you to pick up on my error (despite spending your life
on these groups) it doesn't appear you knew any better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently but
don't let it define you.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd3f1yr7c1qlu3/IMG_4687.jpeg?dl=0>
On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put
on slower low profile tyres simply to go with
a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre
is a 405/65 R18 (like many higher profile road
cars) and the front a higher AR at 305/86 R18
(very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall
diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the
overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter
(which you convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then you
divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a
fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that buyers of
road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I was expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated
that I realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car
means that for a similar profile the sidewall is
proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres
but more like the tyres on van the I use for the dogs.
215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get
a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road
car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or
to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another
inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side they
do not resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the
technical information about F1 doesn't understand something so
basic as how racing tire sizes are designated and how it relates
to the way that road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on reality
and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the last
few days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well beyond
the scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the tyre
profile referred to and from the way you have been writing and how
long it took you to pick up on my error (despite spending your life
on these groups) it doesn't appear you knew any better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently but
don't let it define you.
I'll just leave this here:
'Ummmm... ...no.
The "60" indicates that the section height of the tire is 60% of the
section width of the tire (the "185" or "195" in the size; which is
not tread width, BTW), and both of these figures are nominal and not necessarily completely precise.
So a 185/60R14 tire is (nominally!) 185mm wide at its widest point
(the tread is narrower and (nominally!) 2 * (185 * .6)/25.4 + 14 =
22.74" tall.'
That was written in 2010.
If you had any class, you'd apologize.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put
on slower low profile tyres simply to go with
a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre
is a 405/65 R18 (like many higher profile road
cars) and the front a higher AR at 305/86 R18
(very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall
diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the
overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter
(which you convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then you
divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a
fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want
road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that buyers of
road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I was
expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated
that I realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car
means that for a similar profile the sidewall is
proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres
but more like the tyres on van the I use for the dogs.
215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get
a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road
car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or
to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another
inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side they
do not resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the
technical information about F1 doesn't understand something so
basic as how racing tire sizes are designated and how it relates
to the way that road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on reality
and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the last
few days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well beyond
the scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the tyre
profile referred to and from the way you have been writing and how
long it took you to pick up on my error (despite spending your life
on these groups) it doesn't appear you knew any better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently but
don't let it define you.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd3f1yr7c1qlu3/IMG_4687.jpeg?dl=0>
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with young boys
or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata/c/Lc-YwDUjRuk/m/fX7iXIFo9q4J>
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put
on slower low profile tyres simply to go with
a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre
is a 405/65 R18 (like many higher profile road
cars) and the front a higher AR at 305/86 R18
(very much higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall
diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking the
overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel diameter
(which you convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then you
divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a
fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want
road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that buyers of
road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I was
expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated
that I realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car
means that for a similar profile the sidewall is
proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres
but more like the tyres on van the I use for the dogs.
215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get
a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road
car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or
to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another
inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side they
do not resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the
technical information about F1 doesn't understand something so
basic as how racing tire sizes are designated and how it relates
to the way that road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on reality
and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the last
few days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well beyond
the scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the tyre
profile referred to and from the way you have been writing and how
long it took you to pick up on my error (despite spending your life
on these groups) it doesn't appear you knew any better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently but
don't let it define you.
I'll just leave this here:
'Ummmm... ...no.
The "60" indicates that the section height of the tire is 60% of the
section width of the tire (the "185" or "195" in the size; which is
not tread width, BTW), and both of these figures are nominal and not
necessarily completely precise.
So a 185/60R14 tire is (nominally!) 185mm wide at its widest point
(the tread is narrower and (nominally!) 2 * (185 * .6)/25.4 + 14 =
22.74" tall.'
Points to
Alan Baker's profile photo
Alan Baker
unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 7:31:26 PM
to
In article
<c96d7594-2304-4c19...@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim M." <tomorrowe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yup. But all other things being equal, the narrower section width will typically have the narrower tread.
That was written in 2010.
If you had any class, you'd apologize.
Lol, WTF are you to talk of class with your constant misrepresentations
and trolling.
When you apologise for the misrepresentation above I'll think about it.
Show your "class" Baker.
When is the last time you apologized for the litany of falsehoods in
which I have caught you?
What misrepresentation would that be?
What falsehoods?
So you looked, saw it was all books on vehicle dynamics, and punked.
On 2022-02-02 2:27 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are
put on slower low profile tyres simply to
go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low
profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear
tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like many higher
profile road cars) and the front a higher
AR at 305/86 R18 (very much higher profile
than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking
the overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel
diameter (which you convert to millimetres, so
457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a
fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that
buyers of road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I
was expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated
that I realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car
means that for a similar profile the sidewall is
proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road
tyres but more like the tyres on van the I use for the
dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you
get a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile
road car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a
19.6"rim or to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would
have to be another inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side
they do not resemble "fashionable" low profile road
tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the
technical information about F1 doesn't understand something so
basic as how racing tire sizes are designated and how it
relates to the way that road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on
reality and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying
little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the
last few days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well
beyond the scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the tyre
profile referred to and from the way you have been writing and
how long it took you to pick up on my error (despite spending
your life on these groups) it doesn't appear you knew any
better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently but
don't let it define you.
I'll just leave this here:
'Ummmm... ...no.
The "60" indicates that the section height of the tire is 60% of
the section width of the tire (the "185" or "195" in the size;
which is not tread width, BTW), and both of these figures are
nominal and not necessarily completely precise.
So a 185/60R14 tire is (nominally!) 185mm wide at its widest point
(the tread is narrower and (nominally!) 2 * (185 * .6)/25.4 + 14 =
22.74" tall.'
Points to
Alan Baker's profile photo
Alan Baker
unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 7:31:26 PM
to
In article
<c96d7594-2304-4c19...@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim M." <tomorrowe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yup. But all other things being equal, the narrower section width
will typically have the narrower tread.
That was written in 2010.
If you had any class, you'd apologize.
Lol, WTF are you to talk of class with your constant
misrepresentations and trolling.
When you apologise for the misrepresentation above I'll think about
it.
What misrepresentation would that be?
Show your "class" Baker.
When is the last time you apologized for the litany of falsehoods in
which I have caught you?
What falsehoods?
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are
put on slower low profile tyres simply to
go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low
profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear
tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like many higher
profile road cars) and the front a higher
AR at 305/86 R18 (very much higher profile
than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking
the overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel
diameter (which you convert to millimetres, so
457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a
fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that
buyers of road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I
was expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated
that I realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car
means that for a similar profile the sidewall is
proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road
tyres but more like the tyres on van the I use for the
dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you
get a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile
road car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a
19.6"rim or to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would
have to be another inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side
they do not resemble "fashionable" low profile road
tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the
technical information about F1 doesn't understand something so
basic as how racing tire sizes are designated and how it
relates to the way that road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on
reality and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying
little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the
last few days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well
beyond the scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the tyre
profile referred to and from the way you have been writing and
how long it took you to pick up on my error (despite spending
your life on these groups) it doesn't appear you knew any
better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently but
don't let it define you.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd3f1yr7c1qlu3/IMG_4687.jpeg?dl=0>
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with young
boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked, saw it was all books on vehicle dynamics, and punked.
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with young
boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:27 a.m., Bigbird wrote:<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata/c/Lc-YwDUjRuk/m/fX7iXIFo9q4J>
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are
put on slower low profile tyres simply to
go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low
profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear
tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like many higher
profile road cars) and the front a higher
AR at 305/86 R18 (very much higher profile
than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall
diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking
the overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel
diameter (which you convert to millimetres, so
457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a
fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want
road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that
buyers of road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I
was expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated
that I realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car
means that for a similar profile the sidewall is
proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road
tyres but more like the tyres on van the I use for the
dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you
get a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile
road car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a
19.6"rim or to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would
have to be another inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side
they do not resemble "fashionable" low profile road
tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the
technical information about F1 doesn't understand something so
basic as how racing tire sizes are designated and how it
relates to the way that road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on
reality and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying
little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the
last few days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well
beyond the scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the tyre
profile referred to and from the way you have been writing and
how long it took you to pick up on my error (despite spending
your life on these groups) it doesn't appear you knew any
better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently but
don't let it define you.
I'll just leave this here:
'Ummmm... ...no.
The "60" indicates that the section height of the tire is 60% of
the section width of the tire (the "185" or "195" in the size;
which is not tread width, BTW), and both of these figures are
nominal and not necessarily completely precise.
So a 185/60R14 tire is (nominally!) 185mm wide at its widest point
(the tread is narrower and (nominally!) 2 * (185 * .6)/25.4 + 14 =
22.74" tall.'
Points to
Alan Baker's profile photo
Alan Baker
unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 7:31:26 PM
to
In article
<c96d7594-2304-4c19...@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim M." <tomorrowe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yup. But all other things being equal, the narrower section width
will typically have the narrower tread.
That was written in 2010.
If you had any class, you'd apologize.
Lol, WTF are you to talk of class with your constant
misrepresentations and trolling.
When you apologise for the misrepresentation above I'll think about
it.
What misrepresentation would that be?
See above.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are
put on slower low profile tyres simply to
go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low
profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear
tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like many higher
profile road cars) and the front a higher
AR at 305/86 R18 (very much higher profile
than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall
diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves taking
the overall diameter (720) subtracting the wheel
diameter (which you convert to millimetres, so
457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without looking a
fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they want
road-relevance they don't use nomenclature that
buyers of road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is that I
was expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being calculated
that I realised that the width of the tyre on an F1 car
means that for a similar profile the sidewall is
proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road
tyres but more like the tyres on van the I use for the
dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you
get a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile
road car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a
19.6"rim or to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would
have to be another inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the side
they do not resemble "fashionable" low profile road
tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the
technical information about F1 doesn't understand something so
basic as how racing tire sizes are designated and how it
relates to the way that road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on
reality and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying
little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the
last few days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well
beyond the scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the tyre
profile referred to and from the way you have been writing and
how long it took you to pick up on my error (despite spending
your life on these groups) it doesn't appear you knew any
better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently but
don't let it define you.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd3f1yr7c1qlu3/IMG_4687.jpeg?dl=0>
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with young
boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked, saw it was all books on vehicle dynamics, and punked.
Another falsehood; you demonstrate your unintelligence and dishonesty
so readily.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with young
boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
Just a few of the books salient to the topic I own and have read and
re-read over the years.
You made an ass of yourself again, then:
On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
You made an ass of yourself again, then:
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
On 2022-02-04 2:12 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars
are put on slower low profile tyres
simply to go with a ridiculous
fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low
profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the
rear tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like many
higher profile road cars) and the front
a higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much
higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and
overall diameter) as 305/720R18 front and
405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves
taking the overall diameter (720) subtracting
the wheel diameter (which you convert to
millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without
looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they
want road-relevance they don't use nomenclature
that buyers of road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is
that I was expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being
calculated that I realised that the width of the
tyre on an F1 car means that for a similar profile
the sidewall is proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road
tyres but more like the tyres on van the I use for
the dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter
you get a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile
road car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would
have to be another inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the
side they do not resemble "fashionable" low profile
road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the technical information about F1 doesn't understand
something so basic as how racing tire sizes are
designated and how it relates to the way that road tire
sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on
reality and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying
little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve
the last few days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well
beyond the scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the
tyre profile referred to and from the way you have been
writing and how long it took you to pick up on my error
(despite spending your life on these groups) it doesn't
appear you knew any better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently
but don't let it define you.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd3f1yr7c1qlu3/IMG_4687.jpeg?dl=0>
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked, saw it was all books on vehicle dynamics, and
punked.
Another falsehood; you demonstrate your unintelligence and
dishonesty so readily.
LOL
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
Just a few of the books salient to the topic I own and have read and
re-read over the years.
So since you claimed that:
"It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the last
few days."
And that I supposedly:
"...claim knowledge or expertise that is well beyond the scope of
what is actually true."
And by your standards when I make a declarative statement you claim
is false, you say I'm a "liar"...
...what would you say you are?
Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have actually known
what my knowledge in this area was when you made those statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
You made an ass of yourself again, then:
So your inference that I had looked was based on what if not my guess?
I think you need a look in that mirror.
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of them on my
book shelf?
Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited picture of you
in your underwear or whatever it was.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 2:12 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars
are put on slower low profile tyres
simply to go with a ridiculous
fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low
profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the
rear tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like many
higher profile road cars) and the front
a higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much
higher profile than most road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and
overall diameter) as 305/720R18 front and
405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves
taking the overall diameter (720) subtracting
the wheel diameter (which you convert to
millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without
looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they
want road-relevance they don't use nomenclature
that buyers of road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is
that I was expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being
calculated that I realised that the width of the
tyre on an F1 car means that for a similar profile
the sidewall is proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile road
tyres but more like the tyres on van the I use for
the dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter
you get a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile
road car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a
19.6"rim or to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would
have to be another inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the
side they do not resemble "fashionable" low profile
road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the
technical information about F1 doesn't understand
something so basic as how racing tire sizes are
designated and how it relates to the way that road tire
sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on
reality and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying
little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve
the last few days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well
beyond the scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the
tyre profile referred to and from the way you have been
writing and how long it took you to pick up on my error
(despite spending your life on these groups) it doesn't
appear you knew any better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently
but don't let it define you.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd3f1yr7c1qlu3/IMG_4687.jpeg?dl=0>
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked, saw it was all books on vehicle dynamics, and
punked.
Another falsehood; you demonstrate your unintelligence and
dishonesty so readily.
LOL
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
So you admit your falsehood.
Just a few of the books salient to the topic I own and have read and
re-read over the years.
LOL!
A claim proving what of any relevance exactly?
So since you claimed that:
"It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the last
few days."
That is indeed the impression you gave.
Maybe you just can't help writing like a dumb cunt who just learned
something new.
And that I supposedly:
"...claim knowledge or expertise that is well beyond the scope of
what is actually true."
Now that is something you have proven repeatedly over the years.
And by your standards when I make a declarative statement you claim
is false, you say I'm a "liar"...
...what would you say you are?
Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have actually known
what my knowledge in this area was when you made those statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to you.
It was a picture of those books.
That's a pertinent fact.
It was a picture of those books.
It was a picture of those books.
It was a picture of those books.
On 2022-02-04 11:32 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 2:12 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the
cars are put on slower low
profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
AIUI the new tyres are not even "low profile".
Unless I have figured it wrongly the
rear tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like many
higher profile road cars) and the
front a higher AR at 305/86 R18
(very much higher profile than most
road cars.
I stand to be corrected.
You have figured it VERY wrongly.
Then correct me.
So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and overall diameter) as 305/720R18 front and 405/720R18
Converting from one to the other involves
taking the overall diameter (720)
subtracting the wheel diameter (which you
convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then
you divide by 2
I thought that was probably what I had
missed.
Well caught.
If only you could manage to do it without
looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
A test you have yet to pass.
:-D
So I make them to be roughly:
405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the
front.
I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if
they want road-relevance they don't use
nomenclature that buyers of road car tyres understand).
I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is
that I was expecting relatively high numbers.
It's not until I thought about what is being
calculated that I realised that the width of the
tyre on an F1 car means that for a similar
profile the sidewall is proportionally larger.
That is why these do not look like low profile
road tyres but more like the tyres on van the I
use for the dogs. 215/55 R16
If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre
diameter you get a 16" rim so pretty much dead
on analogy.
To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low
profile road car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd
have to have a 19.6"rim or to look like a
225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another
inch bigger than that.
So while they look more like road tyres from the
side they do not resemble "fashionable" low
profile road tyres at all.
The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
A common admission: "don't understand a word you
utter."
It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much
of the technical information about F1 doesn't
understand something so basic as how racing tire
sizes are designated and how it relates to the way
that road tire sizes are called out.
What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold
on reality and/or are fabricating in order to be an
annoying little cunt.
It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning
curve the last few days.
Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is
well beyond the scope of what is actually true.
Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what
the tyre profile referred to and from the way you have
been writing and how long it took you to pick up on my
error (despite spending your life on these groups) it
doesn't appear you knew any better.
Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace
frequently but don't let it define you.
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked, saw it was all books on vehicle dynamics, and
punked.
Another falsehood; you demonstrate your unintelligence and
dishonesty so readily.
LOL
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
So you admit your falsehood.
What falsehood would that be?
Just a few of the books salient to the topic I own and have read
and re-read over the years.
LOL!
A claim proving what of any relevance exactly?
That when it comes to knowing what tire profile is...
...I most definitely did.
So since you claimed that:
"It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve the
last few days."
That is indeed the impression you gave.
That's the impression of an ignoramus on the subject matter.
Maybe you just can't help writing like a dumb cunt who just learned something new.
And that I supposedly:
"...claim knowledge or expertise that is well beyond the scope of
what is actually true."
Now that is something you have proven repeatedly over the years.
Not really.
And by your standards when I make a declarative statement you
claim is false, you say I'm a "liar"...
...what would you say you are?
Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have actually
known what my knowledge in this area was when you made those statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to you.
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
That's a pertinent fact.
On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
You made an ass of yourself again, then:
So your inference that I had looked was based on what if not my
guess?
I think you need a look in that mirror.
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of them on
my book shelf?
That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably knew
what you were talking about on that subject.
Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited picture of
you in your underwear or whatever it was.
It was a picture of those books.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.What "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have actuallyYeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to you.
known what my knowledge in this area was when you made those
statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had reason to
calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
You made an ass of yourself again, then:
So your inference that I had looked was based on what if not my
guess?
I think you need a look in that mirror.
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of them on
my book shelf?
That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably knew
what you were talking about on that subject.
...and you'd be wrong.
Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited picture of
you in your underwear or whatever it was.
It was a picture of those books.
Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it being a
picture of you in your underwear?
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have actually
known what my knowledge in this area was when you made those statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to
you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had reason to calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
You failed at the basic understanding that "profile" in the context
of tire sizes refers to the height of the tires SECTION expressed a percentage of the width of that same section...
...AND that that necessarily means that there is two times that
height in the overall diameter of a tire.
Wheel diameter plus TWO times section height.
That is a failure of ignorance.
On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear
with young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
You made an ass of yourself again, then:
So your inference that I had looked was based on what if not my
guess?
I think you need a look in that mirror.
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of
them on my book shelf?
That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably
knew what you were talking about on that subject.
...and you'd be wrong.
Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited picture
of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
It was a picture of those books.
Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it being a
picture of you in your underwear?
A lot of talk,
but it still boils down to you being unable to
apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my knowledge
on this subject...
...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.What "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have actuallyYeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to
known what my knowledge in this area was when you made those
statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had reason to
calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where my mathematics was
at fault.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear
with young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
You made an ass of yourself again, then:
So your inference that I had looked was based on what if not my
guess?
I think you need a look in that mirror.
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of
them on my book shelf?
That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably
knew what you were talking about on that subject.
...and you'd be wrong.
Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited picture
of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
It was a picture of those books.
Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it being a
picture of you in your underwear?
A lot of talk,
Lol, you can do better than that; it is a lot of making you look stupid
and ignorant.
but it still boils down to you being unable to
apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my knowledge
on this subject...
...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.
What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
What it boils down to is you proving that you are an ignorant cunt who frequently reverts to falsehoods and misrepresentations.
I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have
actually known what my knowledge in this area was when
you made those statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to
you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had
reason to calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not
ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where my mathematics
was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in the
context of tires was wrong.
If it had actually been a concept you understood, you would have done
the math differently.
On 2022-02-08 1:33 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your
underwear with young boys or whatever your untitled
post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
You made an ass of yourself again, then:
So your inference that I had looked was based on what if
not my guess?
I think you need a look in that mirror.
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of
them on my book shelf?
That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably
knew what you were talking about on that subject.
...and you'd be wrong.
Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited
picture of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
It was a picture of those books.
Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it being a picture of you in your underwear?
A lot of talk,
Lol, you can do better than that; it is a lot of making you look
stupid and ignorant.
but it still boils down to you being unable to
apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my
knowledge on this subject...
...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.
What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
What it boils down to is you proving that you are an ignorant cunt
who frequently reverts to falsehoods and misrepresentations.
I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.
Deal with it.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.What "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't haveYeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to
actually known what my knowledge in this area was when
you made those statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had
reason to calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not
ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where my mathematics
was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in the
context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and
miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:33 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your
underwear with young boys or whatever your untitled
post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
You made an ass of yourself again, then:
So your inference that I had looked was based on what if
not my guess?
I think you need a look in that mirror.
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of
them on my book shelf?
That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably
knew what you were talking about on that subject.
...and you'd be wrong.
Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited
picture of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
It was a picture of those books.
Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it being a
picture of you in your underwear?
A lot of talk,
Lol, you can do better than that; it is a lot of making you look
stupid and ignorant.
but it still boils down to you being unable to
apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my
knowledge on this subject...
...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.
What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
What it boils down to is you proving that you are an ignorant cunt
who frequently reverts to falsehoods and misrepresentations.
I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.
Deal with it.
You are an habitual liar and have misrepresented me and my posts like
the habitual liar you have proven to be.
No, I haven't.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your
ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have
actually known what my knowledge in this area was when
you made those statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so
easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had
reason to calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where my
mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in the
context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and
miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to
understand that since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that you would need to allow for the fact
that there are two instances of the sidewall height in overall
diameter.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your
ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
On 2022-02-09 11:45 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:33 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your
underwear with young boys or whatever your
untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
You made an ass of yourself again, then:
So your inference that I had looked was based on what if
not my guess?
I think you need a look in that mirror.
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
What would you have inferred if I had sent you a
picture of them on my book shelf?
That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so
probably knew what you were talking about on that subject.
...and you'd be wrong.
Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited
picture of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
It was a picture of those books.
Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it
being a picture of you in your underwear?
A lot of talk,
Lol, you can do better than that; it is a lot of making you look
stupid and ignorant.
but it still boils down to you being unable to
apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my
knowledge on this subject...
...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.
What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
What it boils down to is you proving that you are an ignorant
cunt who frequently reverts to falsehoods and
misrepresentations.
I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.
Deal with it.
You are an habitual liar and have misrepresented me and my posts
like the habitual liar you have proven to be.
No, I haven't.
Your ignorance of the subject has led you to misinterpret things I've
said and you've assumed they were lies because you have almost no
clue about this stuff.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.What "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't haveYeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so
actually known what my knowledge in this area was when
you made those statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had
reason to calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not
ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where my
mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in the
context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and
miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based on
subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to
understand that since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that you would need to allow for the fact
that there are two instances of the sidewall height in overall
diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your
ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you what I did and
you lied like the lying cunt you are.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:45 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:33 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
I have no interest of pictures of you in your
underwear with young boys or whatever your
untitled post might be.
:-D
So you looked,
No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
You made an ass of yourself again, then:
So your inference that I had looked was based on what if
not my guess?
I think you need a look in that mirror.
"Drive to Win"
"Prepare to Win"
"Tune to Win"
"Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
"Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
"How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
"Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
What would you have inferred if I had sent you a
picture of them on my book shelf?
That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so
probably knew what you were talking about on that subject.
...and you'd be wrong.
Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited
picture of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
It was a picture of those books.
Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it
being a picture of you in your underwear?
A lot of talk,
Lol, you can do better than that; it is a lot of making you look
stupid and ignorant.
but it still boils down to you being unable to
apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my
knowledge on this subject...
...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.
What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
What it boils down to is you proving that you are an ignorant
cunt who frequently reverts to falsehoods and
misrepresentations.
I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.
Deal with it.
You are an habitual liar and have misrepresented me and my posts
like the habitual liar you have proven to be.
No, I haven't.
Sorry, but you have done nothing but.
You are an habitual liar.
I have shown you up to be a liar many times and you have shown yourself
to be one here yet again.
Your ignorance of the subject has led you to misinterpret things I've
said and you've assumed they were lies because you have almost no
clue about this stuff.
Wrong. Your lies cannot be explained away.
You are an habitual liar. You have demonstrated it before and have done
so again here.
LOL!
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't
have actually known what my knowledge in this
area was when you made those statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actuallyYeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so
know.
easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never
had reason to calculate it an overlooked something;
algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where my
mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in
the context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty good
idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based
on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to understand that since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that you would need to allow for the
fact that there are two instances of the sidewall height in
overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
Would you like to see the math?
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you what I did
and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.What "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can'tYeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so
have actually known what my knowledge in this
area was when you made those statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually
know.
easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never
had reason to calculate it an overlooked something;
algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where my
mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in
the context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty good
idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and
miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based
on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to
understand that since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that you would need to allow for the
fact that there are two instances of the sidewall height in
overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your
ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you what I did
and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome, bored of
watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
Alan wrote:
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous truth that you
can't have actually known what my knowledge
in this area was when you made those
statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW you couldn't haveYeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come
actually know.
so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have
never had reason to calculate it an overlooked
something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where my mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant
in the context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty
good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall
and miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less
the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile
based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and
failed to understand that since profile IS the ratio of
sidewall height to overall tire section width that you would
need to allow for the fact that there are two instances of
the sidewall height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate
your ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you what I
did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or lying when
it's just that you're ignorant.
There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes that
were under discussion.
Does your ignorance know no bounds?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.What "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguous truth that youYeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come
can't have actually known what my knowledge
in this area was when you made those
statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't have
actually know.
so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have
never had reason to calculate it an overlooked
something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where my
mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant
in the context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty
good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall
and miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less
the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile
based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and
failed to understand that since profile IS the ratio of
sidewall height to overall tire section width that you would
need to allow for the fact that there are two instances of
the sidewall height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate
your ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you what I
did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome, bored of
watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original numbers
calls into question your claimed understanding of the whole subject.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or lying when
it's just that you're ignorant.
There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes that
were under discussion.
WTF do you mean?
I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim width
is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.
So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an undisclosed
source?
Does your ignorance know no bounds?
On 2022-02-13 11:08 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or lying when
it's just that you're ignorant.
There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes that
were under discussion.
WTF do you mean?
I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim widthCite your source.
is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.
So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an undisclosedRim width isn't needed to calculate the tire's profile number.
source?
It is (overall diameter in millimetres minus rim diameter) then divided
by two, then divided by section width, then multiplied by 100 to be expressed as an implicit percentage.
Does your ignorance know no bounds?So where does RIM width figure in the calculation you claim you mean to make.
Write it out.
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous truth that you
can't have actually known what my
knowledge in this area was when you made
those statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW you couldn't haveYeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies
actually know.
come so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have
never had reason to calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where
my mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile"
meant in the context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a
pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to
sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated the
tyre width less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile
based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter
and failed to understand that since profile IS the ratio
of sidewall height to overall tire section width that you
would need to allow for the fact that there are two
instances of the sidewall height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and
demonstrate your ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you
what I did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome,
bored of watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any figures we
were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original
numbers calls into question your claimed understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit you didn't really understand in the first place.
On 2022-02-13 11:08 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or lying
when it's just that you're ignorant.
There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes that
were under discussion.
WTF do you mean?
I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim
width is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.
Cite your source.
So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an undisclosed
source?
Rim width isn't needed to calculate the tire's profile number.
It is (overall diameter in millimetres minus rim diameter) then
divided by two, then divided by section width, then multiplied by 100
to be expressed as an implicit percentage.
Does your ignorance know no bounds?
So where does RIM width figure in the calculation you claim you mean
to make.
Write it out.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.What "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguous truth that youYeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies
can't have actually known what my
knowledge in this area was when you made
those statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't have
actually know.
come so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have
never had reason to calculate it an overlooked
something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where
my mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile"
meant in the context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a
pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to
sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated the
tyre width less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile
based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter
and failed to understand that since profile IS the ratio
of sidewall height to overall tire section width that you
would need to allow for the fact that there are two
instances of the sidewall height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and
demonstrate your ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you
what I did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome,
bored of watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any figures we
were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width", then your
statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original
numbers calls into question your claimed understanding of the whole
subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit you didn't really
understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:08 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or lying
when it's just that you're ignorant.
There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes that
were under discussion.
WTF do you mean?
Yet another question ducked.
I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim
width is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.
Cite your source.
The FIA technical regulations as well as several sites who quoted
figures from Pirelli for the tyre dimensions.
So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an undisclosed
source?
Rim width isn't needed to calculate the tire's profile number.
Not an answer.
Why did you claim the figures "were not provided"?
It is (overall diameter in millimetres minus rim diameter) then
divided by two, then divided by section width, then multiplied by 100
to be expressed as an implicit percentage.
Does your ignorance know no bounds?
So where does RIM width figure in the calculation you claim you mean
to make.
It doesn't. I have not only implied this directly in answer to your
nonsense but also in my original, if flawed, calculations.
If you disbelieve me then come up with how I made those calculations
using rim width.
Write it out.
You continue to misrepresent and lie.
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous truth that
you can't have actually known what my knowledge in this area was when you
made those statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when
lies come so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply
have never had reason to calculate it an
overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified
where my mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile"
meant in the context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a
pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to
sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated the
tyre width less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated
profile based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from
overall diameter and failed to understand that since
profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to overall
tire section width that you would need to allow for
the fact that there are two instances of the sidewall
height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and
demonstrate your ignorance for you in more rigorous
terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you
what I did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome,
bored of watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim
width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any
of your calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any figures
we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width", then
your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim diameter"
as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original
numbers calls into question your claimed understanding of the
whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit you didn't
really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
On 2022-02-16 3:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:08 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim
width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any
of your calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or
lying when it's just that you're ignorant.
There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes
that were under discussion.
WTF do you mean?
Yet another question ducked.
I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim
width is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.
Cite your source.
The FIA technical regulations as well as several sites who quoted
figures from Pirelli for the tyre dimensions.
I note you don't actually provide a cite.
So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an
undisclosed source?
Rim width isn't needed to calculate the tire's profile number.
Not an answer.
Why did you claim the figures "were not provided"?
Because the rim width WASN'T provided, dimwit.
It is (overall diameter in millimetres minus rim diameter) then
divided by two, then divided by section width, then multiplied by
100 to be expressed as an implicit percentage.
Does your ignorance know no bounds?
So where does RIM width figure in the calculation you claim you
mean to make.
It doesn't. I have not only implied this directly in answer to your nonsense but also in my original, if flawed, calculations.
If you disbelieve me then come up with how I made those calculations
using rim width.
I can't.
Because you were thrashing around...
...because you don't really understand this stuff.
Write it out.
You continue to misrepresent and lie.
What did I misrepresent?
That you got your calculations wrong?
That you then tried to suggest that "rim width" was involved
(""because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width.") before
saying you'd meant "tire diameter" instead?
That "tyre width less tire diameter" was just as nonsensical?
What?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.What "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguous truth thatYeah, never mind pertinent facts when
you can't have actually known what my
knowledge in this area was when you
made those statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't have
actually know.
lies come so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
I clearly knew what a profile was I simply
have never had reason to calculate it an
overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified
where my mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile"
meant in the context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a
pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to
sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated the
tyre width less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated
profile based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from
overall diameter and failed to understand that since
profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to overall
tire section width that you would need to allow for
the fact that there are two instances of the sidewall
height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and
demonstrate your ignorance for you in more rigorous
terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you
what I did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome,
bored of watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim
width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any
of your calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any figures
we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width", then
your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim diameter"
as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original
numbers calls into question your claimed understanding of the
whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit you didn't
really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too stupid to
believe what I told you I did and what my calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to support a
litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest person... to the
core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents then
calculated that number but used the diameter instead of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me for a simple
error but all you have done is prove what a dishonest little twat you
are.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:08 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim
width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any
of your calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or
lying when it's just that you're ignorant.
There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes
that were under discussion.
WTF do you mean?
Yet another question ducked.
I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim
width is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.
Cite your source.
The FIA technical regulations as well as several sites who quoted
figures from Pirelli for the tyre dimensions.
I note you don't actually provide a cite.
So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an
undisclosed source?
Rim width isn't needed to calculate the tire's profile number.
Not an answer.
Why did you claim the figures "were not provided"?
Because the rim width WASN'T provided, dimwit.
Provided where, by who?
Why do you keep ducking the question by repeating yourself.
It is (overall diameter in millimetres minus rim diameter) then
divided by two, then divided by section width, then multiplied by
100 to be expressed as an implicit percentage.
Does your ignorance know no bounds?
So where does RIM width figure in the calculation you claim you
mean to make.
It doesn't. I have not only implied this directly in answer to your
nonsense but also in my original, if flawed, calculations.
If you disbelieve me then come up with how I made those calculations
using rim width.
I can't.
Exactly.
Because you were thrashing around...
...because you don't really understand this stuff.
Oh dear.
You can't explain any of your claims yet I am the one "thrashing
around", "not understanding".
Write it out.
You continue to misrepresent and lie.
What did I misrepresent?
Me, a number of times, starting with a claim along the lines that "I
always want to argue technical stuff".
That you got your calculations wrong?
OMG, how long are you going to continue impersonating a retard.
Did I not admit my error?
That you then tried to suggest that "rim width" was involved
(""because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width.") before
saying you'd meant "tire diameter" instead?
Yet, a non-retard would not only have realised I meant diameter, if he understood as much as he claimed but would have accepted that
explanation when I pointed it out.
That "tyre width less tire diameter" was just as nonsensical?
Isn't it yet you are the only one of us to keep writing that. I never
have, nor have I implied that I would.
What?
In summary: you are an intransigent, thoroughly dishonest and rather unintelligent... and heading for the Bozo bin imminently if you carry
on with your falsehoods and retarded commentary.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
Then get to it, asshole.
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous truth
that you can't have actually
known what my knowledge in this
area was when you made those statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW you couldn'tYeah, never mind pertinent facts
have actually know.
when lies come so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I
simply have never had reason to
calculate it an overlooked something;
algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you
identified where my mathematics was at
fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what
"profile" meant in the context of tires was
wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already
have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated
the tyre width less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from
overall diameter and failed to understand that
since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that you would need to
allow for the fact that there are two instances
of the sidewall height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better than I
do? It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your ignorance for you in more
rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told
you what I did and you lied like the lying cunt you
are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a
tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's own
shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim
width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based
any of your calculations on a figure you didn't even
have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any
figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width",
then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim
diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my
original numbers calls into question your claimed
understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit you didn't
really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too stupid to
believe what I told you I did and what my calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to support a
litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest person... to the
core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents then
calculated that number but used the diameter instead of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me for a
simple error but all you have done is prove what a dishonest little
twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.What "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguous truthYeah, never mind pertinent facts
that you can't have actually
known what my knowledge in this
area was when you made those
statements...
...and that you KNEW you couldn't
have actually know.
when lies come so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
I clearly knew what a profile was I
simply have never had reason to
calculate it an overlooked something;
algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you
identified where my mathematics was at
fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what
"profile" meant in the context of tires was
wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already
have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of width to
sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated
the tyre width less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated
profile based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from
overall diameter and failed to understand that
since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that you would need to
allow for the fact that there are two instances
of the sidewall height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better than I
do? It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and
demonstrate your ignorance for you in more
rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told
you what I did and you lied like the lying cunt you
are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a
tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's own
shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim
width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based
any of your calculations on a figure you didn't even
have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any
figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width",
then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim
diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my
original numbers calls into question your claimed
understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit you didn't
really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too stupid to
believe what I told you I did and what my calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to support a
litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest person... to the
core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents then
calculated that number but used the diameter instead of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your dishonest
representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me for a
simple error but all you have done is prove what a dishonest little
twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I have
claimed otherwise.
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous
truth that you can't have
actually known what my
knowledge in this area was
when you made those
statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW youYeah, never mind pertinent facts
couldn't have actually know.
when lies come so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet
again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I
simply have never had reason to
calculate it an overlooked
something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you
identified where my mathematics was at
fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in the context of tires
was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already
have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of
width to sidewall and miscalculated because
I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and
calculated profile based on subtracting rim
DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to understand that since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to overall tire section width
that you would need to allow for the fact
that there are two instances of the sidewall
height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I
do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better
than I do? It's alright I'll leave your fantasies
to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures
and demonstrate your ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I
told you what I did and you lied like the lying
cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a
tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's own
shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no
"rim width" provided, so you couldn't possibly
have based any of your calculations on a figure
you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any
figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim
width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim
diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my
original numbers calls into question your claimed
understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit you
didn't really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a measure
of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too stupid
to believe what I told you I did and what my calculations bear
out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to
support a litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest person...
to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents then calculated that number but used the diameter instead of the
radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me for a
simple error but all you have done is prove what a dishonest
little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I have
claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous
truth that you can't have
actually known what my
knowledge in this area was
when you made those
statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW youYeah, never mind pertinent facts
couldn't have actually know.
when lies come so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet
again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I
simply have never had reason to
calculate it an overlooked
something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you
identified where my mathematics was at
fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in the context of tires
was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already
have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of
width to sidewall and miscalculated because
I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and
calculated profile based on subtracting rim
DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to understand that since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to overall tire section width
that you would need to allow for the fact
that there are two instances of the sidewall
height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I
do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better
than I do? It's alright I'll leave your fantasies
to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures
and demonstrate your ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I
told you what I did and you lied like the lying
cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a
tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's own
shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no
"rim width" provided, so you couldn't possibly
have based any of your calculations on a figure
you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any
figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim
width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim
diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my
original numbers calls into question your claimed
understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit you
didn't really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a measure
of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too stupid
to believe what I told you I did and what my calculations bear
out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to
support a litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest person...
to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents then calculated that number but used the diameter instead of the
radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me for a
simple error but all you have done is prove what a dishonest
little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I have
claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yetWhat "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguousYeah, never mind pertinent facts
truth that you can't have
actually known what my
knowledge in this area was
when you made those
statements...
...and that you KNEW you
couldn't have actually know.
when lies come so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I
simply have never had reason to
calculate it an overlooked
something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you
identified where my mathematics was at
fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what
"profile" meant in the context of tires
was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already
have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of
width to sidewall and miscalculated because
I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and
calculated profile based on subtracting rim
DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to
understand that since profile IS the ratio of
sidewall height to overall tire section width
that you would need to allow for the fact
that there are two instances of the sidewall
height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I
do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better
than I do? It's alright I'll leave your fantasies
to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures
and demonstrate your ignorance for you in more
rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I
told you what I did and you lied like the lying
cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a
tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's own
shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no
"rim width" provided, so you couldn't possibly
have based any of your calculations on a figure
you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any
figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim
width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim
diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my
original numbers calls into question your claimed
understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit you
didn't really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a measure
of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too stupid
to believe what I told you I did and what my calculations bear
out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to
support a litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest person...
to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents then
calculated that number but used the diameter instead of the
radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your dishonest
representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me for a
simple error but all you have done is prove what a dishonest
little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I have
claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or refuted,
rebutted or shown to be misleading or false representation.
A lie told many times is still a lie.
On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous
truth that you can't have actually known what my
knowledge in this area was
when you made those
statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW youYeah, never mind pertinent
couldn't have actually
know.
facts when lies come so
easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile
was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet
again.
I clearly knew what a profile
was I simply have never had
reason to calculate it an
overlooked something; algebra
not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where my mathematics was
at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of
what "profile" meant in the context
of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We
already have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of
width to sidewall and miscalculated
because I calculated the tyre width
less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based on subtracting
rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and
failed to understand that since profile
IS the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that you would
need to allow for the fact that there are
two instances of the sidewall height in
overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better
than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better
than I do? It's alright I'll leave your
fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer
stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous
figures and demonstrate your ignorance
for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your
own. I told you what I did and you lied
like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you
mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's
own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there
was no "rim width" provided, so you couldn't
possibly have based any of your calculations
on a figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter"
now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in
any figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim
width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting"
my original numbers calls into question your claimed understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit
you didn't really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a
measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too
stupid to believe what I told you I did and what my
calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to
support a litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest
person... to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents
then calculated that number but used the diameter instead
of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your
dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me
for a simple error but all you have done is prove what a
dishonest little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
have claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or refuted,
rebutted or shown to be misleading or false representation.
A lie told many times is still a lie.
What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yetWhat "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguousYeah, never mind pertinent
truth that you can't have
actually known what my
knowledge in this area was
when you made those
statements...
...and that you KNEW you
couldn't have actually
know.
facts when lies come so
easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile
was...
...you were clueless.
again.
I clearly knew what a profile
was I simply have never had
reason to calculate it an
overlooked something; algebra
not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you
identified where my mathematics was
at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of
what "profile" meant in the context
of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We
already have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of
width to sidewall and miscalculated
because I calculated the tyre width
less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and
calculated profile based on subtracting
rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and
failed to understand that since profile
IS the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that you would
need to allow for the fact that there are
two instances of the sidewall height in
overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better
than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better
than I do? It's alright I'll leave your
fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer
stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous
figures and demonstrate your ignorance
for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your
own. I told you what I did and you lied
like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you
mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a
tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's
own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there
was no "rim width" provided, so you couldn't
possibly have based any of your calculations
on a figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter"
now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in
any figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim
width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim
diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting"
my original numbers calls into question your claimed
understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit
you didn't really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a
measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too
stupid to believe what I told you I did and what my
calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to
support a litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest
person... to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents
then calculated that number but used the diameter instead
of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your
dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me
for a simple error but all you have done is prove what a
dishonest little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
have claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or refuted,
rebutted or shown to be misleading or false representation.
A lie told many times is still a lie.
What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt who's been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since your first interject
ion.
You're a pussy.
You snipped my text
On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Never mind the
unambiguous truth
that you can't have
actually known what
my knowledge in this
area was when you
made those
statements...
What "pertinent facts",...and that you KNEWYeah, never mind
you couldn't have
actually know.
pertinent facts when
lies come so easily to
you.
hmmm?
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile
was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your
ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a
profile was I simply have
never had reason to
calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not
ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math
wrong".
If you did one thing correctly
you identified where my
mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea
of what "profile" meant in the
context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We
already have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the
ratio of width to sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated
the tyre width less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read
and calculated profile based on
subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to understand
that since profile IS the ratio of
sidewall height to overall tire
section width that you would need to
allow for the fact that there are two instances of the sidewall height in
overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better
than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did
better than I do? It's alright I'll leave
your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer
stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous
figures and demonstrate your ignorance
for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your
own. I told you what I did and you lied
like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you
mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but
in a tiresome, bored of watching the puppy
eat it's own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there
was no "rim width" provided, so you
couldn't possibly have based any of your calculations on a figure you didn't even
have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim
diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was
included in any figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of
"rim width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with
"rim diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant
to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after
"correcting" my original numbers calls into
question your claimed understanding of the
whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply
admit you didn't really understand in the first
place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a
measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too
stupid to believe what I told you I did and what my calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order
to support a litany of falsehoods, lies and
misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest
person... to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents
then calculated that number but used the diameter
instead of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle
me for a simple error but all you have done is prove
what a dishonest little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
have claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or
refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or false
representation.
A lie told many times is still a lie.
What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt who's been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since your first interject
ion.
You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
You're a pussy.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Demonstrating yourWhat "pertinent facts",Never mind theYeah, never mind
unambiguous truth
that you can't have
actually known what
my knowledge in this
area was when you
made those
statements...
...and that you KNEW
you couldn't have
actually know.
pertinent facts when
lies come so easily to
you.
hmmm?
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile
was...
...you were clueless.
ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a
profile was I simply have
never had reason to
calculate it an overlooked
something; algebra not
ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math
wrong".
If you did one thing correctly
you identified where my
mathematics was at fault.
No. I identified where your idea
of what "profile" meant in the
context of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We
already have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the
ratio of width to sidewall and
miscalculated because I calculated
the tyre width less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read
and calculated profile based on
subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall
diameter and failed to understand
that since profile IS the ratio of
sidewall height to overall tire
section width that you would need to
allow for the fact that there are two
instances of the sidewall height in
overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better
than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did
better than I do? It's alright I'll leave
your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer
stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous
figures and demonstrate your ignorance
for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your
own. I told you what I did and you lied
like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you
mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but
in a tiresome, bored of watching the puppy
eat it's own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there
was no "rim width" provided, so you
couldn't possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you didn't even
have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim
diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was
included in any figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of
"rim width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with
"rim diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant
to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after
"correcting" my original numbers calls into
question your claimed understanding of the
whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply
admit you didn't really understand in the first
place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a
measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too
stupid to believe what I told you I did and what my
calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order
to support a litany of falsehoods, lies and
misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest
person... to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents
then calculated that number but used the diameter
instead of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your
dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle
me for a simple error but all you have done is prove
what a dishonest little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
have claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or
refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or false
representation.
A lie told many times is still a lie.
What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt who's been
fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since your first interject
ion.
You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
Liar.
You're a pussy.
You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.
Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you snipped and explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
snipped
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yetWhat "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguousYeah, never mind pertinent facts
truth that you can't have
actually known what my
knowledge in this area was
when you made those
statements...
...and that you KNEW you
couldn't have actually know.
when lies come so easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile was...
...you were clueless.
again.
I clearly knew what a profile was I
simply have never had reason to
calculate it an overlooked
something; algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you
identified where my mathematics was at
fault.
No. I identified where your idea of what
"profile" meant in the context of tires
was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We already
have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of
width to sidewall and miscalculated because
I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and
calculated profile based on subtracting rim
DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to
understand that since profile IS the ratio of
sidewall height to overall tire section width
that you would need to allow for the fact
that there are two instances of the sidewall
height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I
do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better
than I do? It's alright I'll leave your fantasies
to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures
and demonstrate your ignorance for you in more
rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I
told you what I did and you lied like the lying
cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a
tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's own
shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there was no
"rim width" provided, so you couldn't possibly
have based any of your calculations on a figure
you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any
figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim
width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim
diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my
original numbers calls into question your claimed
understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit you
didn't really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a measure
of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too stupid
to believe what I told you I did and what my calculations bear
out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to
support a litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest person...
to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents then
calculated that number but used the diameter instead of the
radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your dishonest
representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me for a
simple error but all you have done is prove what a dishonest
little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I have
claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
Okay, let's look at your"analysis"
"YOU on the other hand tried to blame it on using a figure for the calculation that you were never given ("rim width") and then when that
was pointed out to you, claimed you meant a figure you were given, but
that made an even MORE nonsensical calculation ("tire width less
overall diameter")."
"a figure you were never given" like "figures provided" you keep
repeating this yet refuse to explain WTF you mean by it.
I was "given" any figures. What figures were you "given" an by whom?
When I explained where I went wrong (something that should have been
obvious to you if you understood what was being calculated and had paid attention to earlier posts where I admitted my error) I wrote "rim
width" and "tyre width" instead of diameter.
When you queried "rim width" I said that obviously "rim diameter" was intended.
You have since made a number of inane claims that make no sense
whatsoever about what I calculated.
The overriding truth here is that we both know exactly what I did and
that you you have vainly tried to make it into something that
demonstrates a greater lack of understand than is clearly demonstrated
not only by my original calculations but by my discussion of what the
tyres look like.
Perhaps you chose to ignore that because you are still ducking the
question about your claims that the tyres look like "high performance tyres"... when my point was that they don't even look like low profile
road tyres at all.
Now we both know you have nothing new to say and will simply be
dishonest and try to obfuscate.
That being the case why not just GO FUCK YOURSELF.
Why don't you come and make me, pussy.
Why don't you come and make me, pussy.
Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
On 2022-02-19 3:56 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous truth
that you can't
have actually
known what my
knowledge in this
area was when you
made those
statements...
What "pertinent...and that youYeah, never mind
KNEW you couldn't
have actually
know.
pertinent facts when
lies come so easily
to you.
facts", hmmm?
What "lies"?
I knew what tire
profile was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your
ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a
profile was I simply
have never had reason to calculate it an
overlooked something;
algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math
wrong".
If you did one thing
correctly you identified
where my mathematics was at
fault.
No. I identified where your
idea of what "profile" meant
in the context of tires was
wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you
are. We already have a pretty
good idea.
I read that the profile is the
ratio of width to sidewall and miscalculated because I
calculated the tyre width less
the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you
read and calculated profile based
on subtracting rim DIAMETER from
overall diameter and failed to
understand that since profile IS
the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that
you would need to allow for the
fact that there are two instances
of the sidewall height in overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did
better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I
did better than I do? It's alright
I'll leave your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your
erroneous figures and demonstrate
your ignorance for you in more
rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed
your own. I told you what I did and
you lied like the lying cunt you
are.
No. You got it wrong what you got
wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing
but in a tiresome, bored of watching
the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of
way.
Or how about I simply point out that
there was no "rim width" provided, so
you couldn't possibly have based any
of your calculations on a figure you
didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim
diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the
rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was
included in any figures we were given you
said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of
"rim width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the
rim diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced
with "rim diameter" as YOU stated you had
actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after
"correcting" my original numbers calls into question your claimed understanding of the
whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply
admit you didn't really understand in the
first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile
was a measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be
too stupid to believe what I told you I did and
what my calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in
order to support a litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest person... to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio
represents then calculated that number but used the diameter instead of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support
your dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to
belittle me for a simple error but all you have
done is prove what a dishonest little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to
imply I have claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual
analysis.
There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or
refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or false representation.
A lie told many times is still a lie.
What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt who's
been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since your first interject ion.
You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
Liar.
You're a pussy.
You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.
Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you snipped and
explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
On 2022-02-18 2:37 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous
truth that you can't have actually known what my
knowledge in this area was
when you made those
statements...
What "pertinent facts", hmmm?...and that you KNEW youYeah, never mind pertinent
couldn't have actually
know.
facts when lies come so
easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile
was...
...you were clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet
again.
I clearly knew what a profile
was I simply have never had
reason to calculate it an
overlooked something; algebra
not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you identified where my mathematics was
at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of
what "profile" meant in the context
of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We
already have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of
width to sidewall and miscalculated
because I calculated the tyre width
less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based on subtracting
rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and
failed to understand that since profile
IS the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that you would
need to allow for the fact that there are
two instances of the sidewall height in
overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better
than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better
than I do? It's alright I'll leave your
fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer
stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous
figures and demonstrate your ignorance
for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your
own. I told you what I did and you lied
like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you
mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's
own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there
was no "rim width" provided, so you couldn't
possibly have based any of your calculations
on a figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter"
now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in
any figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim
width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting"
my original numbers calls into question your claimed understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit
you didn't really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a
measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too
stupid to believe what I told you I did and what my
calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to
support a litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest
person... to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents
then calculated that number but used the diameter instead
of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your
dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me
for a simple error but all you have done is prove what a
dishonest little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
have claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
Okay, let's look at your"analysis"
"YOU on the other hand tried to blame it on using a figure for the calculation that you were never given ("rim width") and then when
that was pointed out to you, claimed you meant a figure you were
given, but that made an even MORE nonsensical calculation ("tire
width less overall diameter")."
"a figure you were never given" like "figures provided" you keep
repeating this yet refuse to explain WTF you mean by it.
I was "given" any figures. What figures were you "given" an by whom?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:37 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Demonstrating your ignorance yetWhat "pertinent facts", hmmm?Never mind the unambiguousYeah, never mind pertinent
truth that you can't have
actually known what my
knowledge in this area was
when you made those
statements...
...and that you KNEW you
couldn't have actually
know.
facts when lies come so
easily to you.
What "lies"?
I knew what tire profile
was...
...you were clueless.
again.
I clearly knew what a profile
was I simply have never had
reason to calculate it an
overlooked something; algebra
not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you
identified where my mathematics was
at fault.
No. I identified where your idea of
what "profile" meant in the context
of tires was wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you are. We
already have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is the ratio of
width to sidewall and miscalculated
because I calculated the tyre width
less the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you read and
calculated profile based on subtracting
rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and
failed to understand that since profile
IS the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that you would
need to allow for the fact that there are
two instances of the sidewall height in
overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did better
than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I did better
than I do? It's alright I'll leave your
fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer
stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your erroneous
figures and demonstrate your ignorance
for you in more rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed your
own. I told you what I did and you lied
like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you
mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a
tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's
own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out that there
was no "rim width" provided, so you couldn't
possibly have based any of your calculations
on a figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter"
now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in
any figures we were given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim
width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim
diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting"
my original numbers calls into question your claimed
understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply admit
you didn't really understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a
measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too
stupid to believe what I told you I did and what my
calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to
support a litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest
person... to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents
then calculated that number but used the diameter instead
of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your
dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me
for a simple error but all you have done is prove what a
dishonest little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
have claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
Okay, let's look at your"analysis"
"YOU on the other hand tried to blame it on using a figure for the
calculation that you were never given ("rim width") and then when
that was pointed out to you, claimed you meant a figure you were
given, but that made an even MORE nonsensical calculation ("tire
width less overall diameter")."
"a figure you were never given" like "figures provided" you keep
repeating this yet refuse to explain WTF you mean by it.
I was "given" any figures. What figures were you "given" an by whom?
The first few lines are not an explanation of WTF you mean by the
above...
I must now assume you had no idea how to calculate these profiles and
copied your versions from somewhere else and are referring to the
figures provided in someone else's work. This is the only way your
repetition of "provided"/"given" figures makes any sense. I was not
provided with or given a limited set of figures like you. I looked them
up for myself and in some of those places there are plenty of related
figures which you were obviously not "provided" with.
You following, as far as I read, are again nonsensical lies and misrepresentations that have been dealt with above.
Your dishonesty is a mental disease.
You duck and lie repeatedly... and your bad at it.
You have fucked yourself.
Perhaps you chose to ignore that because you are still ducking the
question about your claims that the tyres look like "high
performance tyres"... when my point was that they don't even look
like low profile road tyres at all.
Really?
Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
245/35R18
That really isn't that far off the real F1 numbers of 405/32R18, now
is it?
Alan wrote:
Having seen Alan LeHun's post I thought I'd deal with this stupid
comment of yours.
Perhaps you chose to ignore that because you are still ducking the
question about your claims that the tyres look like "high
performance tyres"... when my point was that they don't even look
like low profile road tyres at all.
Really?
Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
245/35R18
That really isn't that far off the real F1 numbers of 405/32R18, now
is it?
Those are numbers.
Are you STILL claiming your tyres look like F1 tyres?
You think a sidewall of 8.5cm on a low profile road tyre looks similar
to the 13cm sidewall on an F1 tyre?
Like I said before, and you ducked, the proportions have more in common
with the tyres on a van than a "high performance". You are just too
ignorant to appreciate it and/or admit it, aren't you?
YES or NO?
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-19 3:56 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Demonstrating yourWhat "pertinentNever mind theYeah, never mind
unambiguous truth
that you can't
have actually
known what my
knowledge in this
area was when you
made those
statements...
...and that you
KNEW you couldn't
have actually
know.
pertinent facts when
lies come so easily
to you.
facts", hmmm?
What "lies"?
I knew what tire
profile was...
...you were clueless.
ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what a
profile was I simply
have never had reason to
calculate it an
overlooked something;
algebra not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the math
wrong".
If you did one thing
correctly you identified
where my mathematics was at
fault.
No. I identified where your
idea of what "profile" meant
in the context of tires was
wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you
are. We already have a pretty
good idea.
I read that the profile is the
ratio of width to sidewall and
miscalculated because I
calculated the tyre width less
the rim width.
No. You misunderstood what you
read and calculated profile based
on subtracting rim DIAMETER from
overall diameter and failed to
understand that since profile IS
the ratio of sidewall height to
overall tire section width that
you would need to allow for the
fact that there are two instances
of the sidewall height in overall
diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I did
better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what I
did better than I do? It's alright
I'll leave your fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there is sheer
stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your
erroneous figures and demonstrate
your ignorance for you in more
rigorous terms.
You can't, you have only confirmed
your own. I told you what I did and
you lied like the lying cunt you
are.
No. You got it wrong what you got
wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you
mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing
but in a tiresome, bored of watching
the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of
way.
Or how about I simply point out that
there was no "rim width" provided, so
you couldn't possibly have based any
of your calculations on a figure you
didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim
diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less the
rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was
included in any figures we were given you
said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant instead of
"rim width", then your statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less the
rim diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced
with "rim diameter" as YOU stated you had
actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after
"correcting" my original numbers calls into
question your claimed understanding of the
whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to simply
admit you didn't really understand in the
first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile
was a measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be
too stupid to believe what I told you I did and
what my calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in
order to support a litany of falsehoods, lies and
misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually dishonest
person... to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio
represents then calculated that number but used the
diameter instead of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support
your dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to
belittle me for a simple error but all you have
done is prove what a dishonest little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to
imply I have claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual
analysis.
There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or
refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or false
representation.
A lie told many times is still a lie.
What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt who's
been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since your first
interject ion.
You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
Liar.
You're a pussy.
You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.
Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you snipped and
explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
Another dishonest misrepresentation.
There was nothing new in what I snipped. The same misrepresentation and
lies you have been flogging your dead horse with for days... yet I did respond to it days ago... as you well know.
A Eunuch like you suggesting anyone needs to grow a pair to deal with
your infantile fabrications is hilarious.
In article <sus3ke$fes$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
Is that a family car?
320hp
performance coupe.
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
320hp
big fucking deal
you pussy
On 2022-02-20 6:31 p.m., texas gate wrote:
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
320hp
big fucking dealTell us what you drive, big boy.
you pussy
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 7:39:58 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-20 6:31 p.m., texas gate wrote:
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Tell us what you drive, big boy.
320hp
big fucking deal
you pussy
M5 500hp
On 2022-02-20 5:50 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
Having seen Alan LeHun's post I thought I'd deal with this stupid
comment of yours.
Perhaps you chose to ignore that because you are still ducking
the question about your claims that the tyres look like "high performance tyres"... when my point was that they don't even
look like low profile road tyres at all.
Really?
Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
245/35R18
That really isn't that far off the real F1 numbers of 405/32R18,
now is it?
Those are numbers.
Yes. Very good.
Those... ...ARE numbers.
Are you STILL claiming your tyres look like F1 tyres?
You think a sidewall of 8.5cm on a low profile road tyre looks
similar to the 13cm sidewall on an F1 tyre?
Yup. Because what makes thing LOOK similar is PROPORTION.
Like I said before, and you ducked, the proportions have more in
common with the tyres on a van than a "high performance". You are
just too ignorant to appreciate it and/or admit it, aren't you?
YES or NO?
Sorry, but you precede from a false premise.
Just because the absolute number is similar to what you might find on
a van has almost nothing to do with whether they resemble a high
performance car's tires. That comes down to the PROPORTIONS.
Allow me to whip you up a quick example.
On 2022-02-20 5:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-19 3:56 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47
a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Never mind the unambiguous
truth that
you can't
have actually
known what my knowledge in
this area was
when you made
those
statements...
What "pertinent...and thatYeah, never mind pertinent facts
you KNEW you
couldn't have actually know.
when lies come
so easily to
you.
facts", hmmm?
What "lies"?
I knew what tire
profile was...
...you were
clueless.
Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what
a profile was I
simply have never
had reason to
calculate it an
overlooked
something; algebra
not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the
math wrong".
If you did one thing
correctly you identified
where my mathematics
was at fault.
No. I identified where
your idea of what
"profile" meant in the
context of tires was
wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you
are. We already have a
pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is
the ratio of width to
sidewall and miscalculated
because I calculated the
tyre width less the rim
width.
No. You misunderstood what you
read and calculated profile
based on subtracting rim
DIAMETER from overall
diameter and failed to
understand that since profile
IS the ratio of sidewall
height to overall tire
section width that you would
need to allow for the fact
that there are two instances
of the sidewall height in
overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I
did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what
I did better than I do? It's
alright I'll leave your fantasies
to you.
There is conceit and there is
sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your
erroneous figures and
demonstrate your ignorance
for you in more rigorous
terms.
You can't, you have only
confirmed your own. I told you
what I did and you lied like
the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got
wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are
amusing but in a tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's own
shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out
that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't
possibly have based any of your calculations on a figure you
didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of
yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less
the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any figures we were given you
said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant
instead of "rim width", then your
statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less
the rim diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width"
replaced with "rim diameter" as YOU stated
you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original numbers calls
into question your claimed
understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to
simply admit you didn't really understand
in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile
was a measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math
correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming
to be too stupid to believe what I told you I
did and what my calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation
in order to support a litany of falsehoods,
lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually
dishonest person... to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents then calculated that number but used
the diameter instead of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to
support your dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to
belittle me for a simple error but all you have
done is prove what a dishonest little twat you
are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to
imply I have claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
There is nothing there that has not been discussed
and/or refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or
false representation.
A lie told many times is still a lie.
What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt
who's been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since
your first interject ion.
You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
Liar.
You're a pussy.
You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.
Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you snipped
and explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
Another dishonest misrepresentation.
Is it dishonest to say you snipped my text?
There was nothing new in what I snipped. The same misrepresentation
and lies you have been flogging your dead horse with for days...
yet I did respond to it days ago... as you well know.
You've never once actually explained how anything I've said is
actually a lie rather than you failing to understand what I've said.
A Eunuch like you suggesting anyone needs to grow a pair to deal
with your infantile fabrications is hilarious.
LOLOOLOL!
If the family is small...sure!
2-door performance coupe.
320hp
In article <suultt$vhm$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
If the family is small...sure!
2-door performance coupe.
320hp
It's just that I don't really know of any other racing drivers who
choose a beemer as their personal road car. Mercs, Astons, VW's, Fiats
even a few Japanese cars plus the expected supercars of course. But
Beemers? Can't think of any, and it does seem an odd choice for a racing driver.
Practical enough for transporting up to 4 normal size human beings
with trunk big enough to swallow my golf clubs or my hockey bag.
It's just that I don't really know of any other racing drivers who
choose a beemer as their personal road car. Mercs, Astons, VW's, Fiats
even a few Japanese cars plus the expected supercars of course. But Beemers? Can't think of any, and it does seem an odd choice for a racing driver.
Why?
It's my daily driving road car, and I'm not a PAID racing driver.
It is a superb performance coupe for the road. Practical enough for transporting up to 4 normal size human beings with trunk big enough to swallow my golf clubs or my hockey bag.
<https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2011-bmw-135i-coupe-first-drive/>
In article <sv153s$4fm$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
It's just that I don't really know of any other racing drivers who
choose a beemer as their personal road car. Mercs, Astons, VW's, Fiats
even a few Japanese cars plus the expected supercars of course. But
Beemers? Can't think of any, and it does seem an odd choice for a racing >>> driver.
Why?
Well bmw's are a little disconnected for skilled drivers. The emphasis
on ride handling, ride quality and ease of driving is delivered at the expense of driver input.
All modern cars are nannied. By law. But bmw have made been doing it for years and although the results for the average driver are phenomenal,
they do retract from the skilled driver at the high end.
It's my daily driving road car, and I'm not a PAID racing driver.
It is a superb performance coupe for the road. Practical enough for
transporting up to 4 normal size human beings with trunk big enough to
swallow my golf clubs or my hockey bag.
It is, yes, but I would postulate it is only a superb performance coupe
for those who have not yet acquired the skill set to drive or who do not intend to. Boy racers and the executive types. As I said earlier,
skilled drivers seem to avoid beemers. Even the true M-class ones.
I'm not roasting you on your choice. I just imagine that it would be a
little frustrating to drive for anyone who likes to drive and who has
the required skill set to get close to the edge with it.
This was the reason I asked if it was a family car. I may not have been
clear but by that I was asking if it was also driven by others.
<https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2011-bmw-135i-coupe-first-drive/>
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-20 5:50 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
Having seen Alan LeHun's post I thought I'd deal with this stupid
comment of yours.
Perhaps you chose to ignore that because you are still ducking
the question about your claims that the tyres look like "high
performance tyres"... when my point was that they don't even
look like low profile road tyres at all.
Really?
Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
245/35R18
That really isn't that far off the real F1 numbers of 405/32R18,
now is it?
Those are numbers.
Yes. Very good.
Those... ...ARE numbers.
Feigning ignorance or truly ignorant?
Are you STILL claiming your tyres look like F1 tyres?
You think a sidewall of 8.5cm on a low profile road tyre looks
similar to the 13cm sidewall on an F1 tyre?
Yup. Because what makes thing LOOK similar is PROPORTION.
A delightful non-sequitur. You are claiming two things which are
clearly disproportional look
proportional.
Be honest, Baker, you haven't a clue what you are talking about have
you.
Like I said before, and you ducked, the proportions have more in
common with the tyres on a van than a "high performance". You are
just too ignorant to appreciate it and/or admit it, aren't you?
YES or NO?
Sorry, but you precede from a false premise.
Just because the absolute number is similar to what you might find on
a van has almost nothing to do with whether they resemble a high
performance car's tires. That comes down to the PROPORTIONS.
Allow me to whip you up a quick example.
No need. I gave examples early on. Ones that prove what a donkey you
are.
Go and check those; since you clearly were not up to comprehending the
point a week ago... maybe it is slowly dawning on you.
Also try to get your head around your stupid assertions and recheck
what I wrote above.
You look truly stupid trying to say that 13cm sidewall on an 18" rim
looks exactly like an 8.5cm sidewall on an 18" rim...
...but such an assertion just about sums up the intransigent ignorance demonstrated by you in this thread.
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-20 5:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-19 3:56 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47
a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Demonstrating yourWhat "pertinentNever mind theYeah, never mind
unambiguous
truth that
you can't
have actually
known what my
knowledge in
this area was
when you made
those
statements...
...and that
you KNEW you
couldn't have
actually know.
pertinent facts
when lies come
so easily to
you.
facts", hmmm?
What "lies"?
I knew what tire
profile was...
...you were
clueless.
ignorance yet again.
I clearly knew what
a profile was I
simply have never
had reason to
calculate it an
overlooked
something; algebra
not ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the
math wrong".
If you did one thing
correctly you identified
where my mathematics
was at fault.
No. I identified where
your idea of what
"profile" meant in the
context of tires was
wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid you
are. We already have a
pretty good idea.
I read that the profile is
the ratio of width to
sidewall and miscalculated
because I calculated the
tyre width less the rim
width.
No. You misunderstood what you
read and calculated profile
based on subtracting rim
DIAMETER from overall
diameter and failed to
understand that since profile
IS the ratio of sidewall
height to overall tire
section width that you would
need to allow for the fact
that there are two instances
of the sidewall height in
overall diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what I
did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little mind.
Would you like to see the math?
The maths that proves you know what
I did better than I do? It's
alright I'll leave your fantasies
to you.
There is conceit and there is
sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take your
erroneous figures and
demonstrate your ignorance
for you in more rigorous
terms.
You can't, you have only
confirmed your own. I told you
what I did and you lied like
the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you got
wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to you
mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are
amusing but in a tiresome, bored of
watching the puppy eat it's own
shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point out
that there was no "rim width"
provided, so you couldn't
possibly have based any of your
calculations on a figure you
didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid twat.
So you calculated "tire width less rim
diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of
yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width less
the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width was
included in any figures we were given you
said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant
instead of "rim width", then your
statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width less
the rim diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width"
replaced with "rim diameter" as YOU stated
you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion after
"correcting" my original numbers calls
into question your claimed
understanding of the whole subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to
simply admit you didn't really understand
in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's profile
was a measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math
correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming
to be too stupid to believe what I told you I
did and what my calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted explanation
in order to support a litany of falsehoods,
lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually
dishonest person... to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile ratio
represents then calculated that number but used
the diameter instead of the radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to
support your dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying to
belittle me for a simple error but all you have
done is prove what a dishonest little twat you
are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to
imply I have claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual
analysis.
There is nothing there that has not been discussed
and/or refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or
false representation.
A lie told many times is still a lie.
What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt
who's been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since
your first interject ion.
You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
Liar.
You're a pussy.
You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.
Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you snipped
and explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
Another dishonest misrepresentation.
Is it dishonest to say you snipped my text?
It's dishonest to suggest I haven't already indicated your falsehoods
and dealt with them.
There was nothing new in what I snipped. The same misrepresentation
and lies you have been flogging your dead horse with for days...
yet I did respond to it days ago... as you well know.
You've never once actually explained how anything I've said is
actually a lie rather than you failing to understand what I've said.
Liar.
Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal level of experience with any of this is.
Before I even bother addressing any of this,
Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal level of experience with any of this is.
Well bmw's are a little disconnected for skilled drivers. The emphasis
on ride handling, ride quality and ease of driving is delivered at the expense of driver input.
Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal level of experience with any of this is.
In article <sv3iue$erl$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
Well bmw's are a little disconnected for skilled drivers. The emphasis
on ride handling, ride quality and ease of driving is delivered at the
expense of driver input.
Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal
level of experience with any of this is.
Well not much. But I have driven a few 3 series over the years and had a
535 for a couple of months but that was about 5 year ago or so.
I liked them all. The 320d is an utterly excellent family saloon.
I sense from the attitude of your response however that you are going to
go full on with your 'I know everything better than you and all the
other racing drivers too' routine, but this isn't about me, just the
other racing drivers. I was just curious as to why you drive a beemer
when other high skill drivers seem to pass over them with barely any exception.
Personally, I have no objection to your choice of car.
On 2022-02-21 3:51 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-20 5:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-19 3:56 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m.,
Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-08 1:29
p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-07 1:47
a.m., Bigbird
wrote:
Never
mind the unambiguou
s truth
that you
can't
have
actually
known
what my
knowledge
in this
area was
when you
made
those
statements
...
What...andYeah, never
that you
KNEW you
couldn't
have
actually
know.
mind
pertinent
facts when
lies come
so easily
to you.
"pertinent
facts", hmmm?
What "lies"?
I knew what
tire profile
was...
...you were
clueless.
Demonstrating
your ignorance
yet again.
I clearly knew
what a profile
was I simply
have never had
reason to
calculate it an overlooked
something;
algebra not
ignorance.
Nope.
You didn't "do the
math wrong".
If you did one thing correctly you
identified where my mathematics was at
fault.
No. I identified where
your idea of what
"profile" meant in the context of tires was
wrong.
Wrong.
Stop proving how stupid
you are. We already
have a pretty good idea.
I read that the profile
is the ratio of width to sidewall and
miscalculated because I calculated the tyre
width less the rim
width.
No. You misunderstood
what you read and
calculated profile based
on subtracting rim
DIAMETER from overall
diameter and failed to
understand that since
profile IS the ratio of
sidewall height to
overall tire section
width that you would need
to allow for the fact
that there are two
instances of the sidewall
height in overall
diameter.
Lol, you claim to know what
I did better than I do.
I do because it's true.
:-)
You've lost your stupid little
mind.
Would you like to see the
math?
The maths that proves you know
what I did better than I do?
It's alright I'll leave your
fantasies to you.
There is conceit and there
is sheer stupidity.
If you want, I'll take
your erroneous figures and demonstrate your ignorance
for you in more rigorous
terms.
You can't, you have only
confirmed your own. I told
you what I did and you lied
like the lying cunt you are.
No. You got it wrong what you
got wrong.
Listen to yourself.
You're too stupid for words.
Do you want me to prove it to
you mathematically?
You can't.
I know exactly what I did.
Your conceit and dishonesty are
amusing but in a tiresome,
bored of watching the puppy eat
it's own shit, kind of way.
Or how about I simply point
out that there was no "rim
width" provided, so you
couldn't possibly have based
any of your calculations on a
figure you didn't even have?
The rim diameter you stupid
twat.
So you calculated "tire width
less rim diameter" now?
Nope.
You really are making an ass of
yourself.
That is literally what you just said.
You said (earlier):
"because I calculated the tyre width
less the rim width."
And when I pointed out that rim width
was included in any figures we were
given you said:
"The rim diameter"
So if that was what imply you meant
instead of "rim width", then your
statement becomes:
"because I calculated the tyre width
less the rim diameter."
No those are your words, fuckwit.
Those were YOUR words with "rim width"
replaced with "rim diameter" as YOU stated
you had actually meant to do.
I never stated that.
You're being infantile.
To make such an inane suggestion
after "correcting" my original
numbers calls into question your
claimed understanding of the whole
subject.
No, actually.
It calls into question your ability to
simply admit you didn't really
understand in the first place.
Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
Didn't really understand what a tire's
profile was a measure of.
If you had, you'd have done the math
correctly.
What an ignorant non-sequitur.
I see where you went wrong. You are claiming
to be too stupid to believe what I told you
I did and what my calculations bear out.
Instead you have made a convoluted
explanation in order to support a litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
You really are looking like an habitually
dishonest person... to the core.
As I told you. I found what the profile
ratio represents then calculated that
number but used the diameter instead of the
radius.
Your only reason to claim otherwise is to
support your dishonest representations.
You thought you were being clever in trying
to belittle me for a simple error but all
you have done is prove what a dishonest
little twat you are.
Dude... ...give it a rest.
You got it wrong.
Again your habitual dishonesty has you
attempting to imply I have claimed otherwise.
I can't help noticing you've snipped all the
factual analysis.
There is nothing there that has not been discussed
and/or refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading
or false representation.
A lie told many times is still a lie.
What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt
who's been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts
since your first interject ion.
You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
Liar.
You're a pussy.
You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.
Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you
snipped and explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
Another dishonest misrepresentation.
Is it dishonest to say you snipped my text?
It's dishonest to suggest I haven't already indicated your
falsehoods and dealt with them.
It isn't dishonest, because you haven't and you haven't.
On 2022-02-21 3:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2022-02-20 5:50 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
Having seen Alan LeHun's post I thought I'd deal with this
stupid comment of yours.
Perhaps you chose to ignore that because you are still
ducking the question about your claims that the tyres look
like "high performance tyres"... when my point was that
they don't even look like low profile road tyres at all.
Really?
Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
245/35R18
That really isn't that far off the real F1 numbers of
405/32R18, now is it?
Those are numbers.
Yes. Very good.
Those... ...ARE numbers.
Feigning ignorance or truly ignorant?
Are you STILL claiming your tyres look like F1 tyres?
You think a sidewall of 8.5cm on a low profile road tyre looks
similar to the 13cm sidewall on an F1 tyre?
Yup. Because what makes thing LOOK similar is PROPORTION.
A delightful non-sequitur. You are claiming two things which are
clearly disproportional look
proportional.
Be honest, Baker, you haven't a clue what you are talking about have
you.
Like I said before, and you ducked, the proportions have more in
common with the tyres on a van than a "high performance". You
are just too ignorant to appreciate it and/or admit it, aren't
you?
YES or NO?
Sorry, but you precede from a false premise.
Just because the absolute number is similar to what you might
find on a van has almost nothing to do with whether they resemble
a high performance car's tires. That comes down to the
PROPORTIONS.
Allow me to whip you up a quick example.
No need. I gave examples early on. Ones that prove what a donkey you
are.
Go and check those; since you clearly were not up to comprehending
the point a week ago... maybe it is slowly dawning on you.
Also try to get your head around your stupid assertions and recheck
what I wrote above.
You look truly stupid trying to say that 13cm sidewall on an 18" rim
looks exactly like an 8.5cm sidewall on an 18" rim...
...but such an assertion just about sums up the intransigent
ignorance demonstrated by you in this thread.
I never said they look exactly the same...
...but you ignore width when you claim that because the sidewall
height is similar a van wheel and tire looks exactly like an F1 wheel
and tire.
Which other "highly skilled drivers" do you you actually KNOW, as
opposed to just having heard about?
So you have no actual experience of any car that you claim is beyond a
BMW in driving experience.
Got it.
No. I just have more actual experience than you do with the full range
of what driver's want out of cars.
Which other "highly skilled drivers" do you you actually KNOW, as
opposed to just having heard about?
In article <sv4hbc$ugj$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
Which other "highly skilled drivers" do you you actually KNOW, as
opposed to just having heard about?
Why are you being deliberately evasive? If it's another playground
tussle you're after, Bird will happily entertain you. I try to stay out
of such incessant handbag chucking threads.
I was simply curious as to why you chose a beemer when it appears to be
a brand that other high-skill drivers seem to pass over.
I'll leave it there.
Alan wrote:
Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you
snipped and explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
Another dishonest misrepresentation.
Is it dishonest to say you snipped my text?
It's dishonest to suggest I haven't already indicated your
falsehoods and dealt with them.
It isn't dishonest, because you haven't and you haven't.
LIAR.
What a really stupid lie.
You've made claims and now we know they aren't from your personal
experience
...because my guess is that you read it once somewhere and that's all.
...because my guess is that you read it once somewhere and that's all.
In article <sv5ofr$54p$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
...because my guess is that you read it once somewhere and that's all.
Well possibly. More likely I've read it many times from many where's, or
to more accurate, never read it at all.
It's simple to look up on t'interweb, what the personal cars of many
drivers are. We know Leclerc is a big Alpha fan. Kimi has a Fiat. Lewis
will most likely be seen in a Smart Brabus. You can find personal cars
for most of the top drivers of most disciplines.
Beemers are conspicuous by their absence. I would say total absence but
I am only working from a small sample of drivers, and none of them
appear to have a bmw.
So lets forget about your personal choice. Personal cars are usually,
above all, a tool rather than a toy and focusing on driving
characteristics generally requires compromise elsewhere. So lets just concentrate on why it is that the beemer is not a favoured car amongst
people with very high driving skill sets.
I would like to know. However, having driven BMW's and the much looser
mercs, I have formed personal ideas as to why that might be and I have alluded to such. The popular mercedes and Italian brands are far less restrictive to driver style. oc, icbw and I happily admit that.
Do you ever examine what you say before you say it?
In article <sv4hbc$ugj$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
Which other "highly skilled drivers" do you you actually KNOW, as
opposed to just having heard about?
Why are you being deliberately evasive? If it's another playground
tussle you're after, Bird will happily entertain you. I try to stay out
of such incessant handbag chucking threads.
I was simply curious as to why you chose a beemer when it appears to be
a brand that other high-skill drivers seem to pass over.
I'll leave it there.
Your answer is in your assumption that you're talking with a 'high-skill driver'.
On 24/02/2022 3:15 am, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article <sv4hbc$ugj$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
Which other "highly skilled drivers" do you you actually KNOW, as
opposed to just having heard about?
Why are you being deliberately evasive? If it's another playground
tussle you're after, Bird will happily entertain you. I try to stay out
of such incessant handbag chucking threads.
I was simply curious as to why you chose a beemer when it appears to be
a brand that other high-skill drivers seem to pass over.
Your answer is in your assumption that you're talking with a 'high-skill driver'.
I'll leave it there.
Me too.
I am a high-skill driver.
I'm a qualified racing driving instructor.
I am a high-skill driver.
I'm a qualified racing driving instructor.
I'm a qualified racing driving instructor.
In article <sv4hbc$ugj$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
Which other "highly skilled drivers" do you you actually KNOW, as
opposed to just having heard about?
Why are you being deliberately evasive? If it's another playground
tussle you're after, Bird will happily entertain you. I try to stay out
of such incessant handbag chucking threads.
I was simply curious as to why you chose a beemer when it appears to be
a brand that other high-skill drivers seem to pass over.
I'll leave it there.
Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> writes:
In article <sv4hbc$ugj$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
Which other "highly skilled drivers" do you you actually KNOW, as
opposed to just having heard about?
Why are you being deliberately evasive? If it's another playground
tussle you're after, Bird will happily entertain you. I try to stay out
of such incessant handbag chucking threads.
I was simply curious as to why you chose a beemer when it appears to be
a brand that other high-skill drivers seem to pass over.
I'll leave it there.
Chris Harris quite likes the ones he's had, and I'd say he's a very
high skill driver:
https://www.bmwblog.com/2022/02/28/chris-harris-bmw-m2-cs-2/
Of course, like many others, he likes a wide range of cars (2CV!),
there's no uniquely pro-BMW preference.
To be fair,
Chris Harris quite likes the ones he's had, and I'd say he's a very
high skill driver:
https://www.bmwblog.com/2022/02/28/chris-harris-bmw-m2-cs-2/
Of course, like many others, he likes a wide range of cars (2CV!),
there's no uniquely pro-BMW preference.
To be fair, the BMW M2 is not really equivalent to a BMW 135i M-Sport.
The M2 is the replacement of what BMW was forced to call the "1M"
previously (because the name "M1" holds a special place in the history
of BMW).
Meh. I wasn't referring to the 135 or your choice of car specifically.
In article <t0an52$ao7$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
To be fair, the BMW M2 is not really equivalent to a BMW 135i M-Sport.
Meh. I wasn't referring to the 135 or your choice of car specifically.
It was a bmw-wide perception I had.
The M2 is the replacement of what BMW was forced to call the "1M"
previously (because the name "M1" holds a special place in the history
of BMW).
Such perception even covered M cars. I'll try and watch Chris's video
tonight sometime.
Meh. I wasn't referring to the 135 or your choice of car specifically.
It was a bmw-wide perception I had.
Based on very little. I know.
Based on very little. I know.
Do that.
One that I was questioning. People do that when they don't know
everything about everything that there is to know. Sometimes, they even
get an answer, and sometimes they find themselves talking to someone
with their head buried deep in their own arse.
The problem with having your head that far up your own arse, is that all
you truly know about with any conviction, tends to be the specific
aromatic fingerprint of your own shit.
One that I was questioning. People do that when they don't know
everything about everything that there is to know. Sometimes, they even
get an answer, and sometimes they find themselves talking to someone
with their head buried deep in their own arse.
The problem with having your head that far up your own arse, is that all
you truly know about with any conviction, tends to be the specific
aromatic fingerprint of your own shit.
In article <t0de8t$c6c$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
Meh. I wasn't referring to the 135 or your choice of car specifically.
It was a bmw-wide perception I had.
Based on very little. I know.
One that I was questioning. People do that when they don't know
everything about everything that there is to know. Sometimes, they even
get an answer, and sometimes they find themselves talking to someone
with their head buried deep in their own arse.
The problem with having your head that far up your own arse, is that all
you truly know about with any conviction, tends to be the specific
aromatic fingerprint of your own shit.
Once again, I'm done with this.
Get the fuck out, you know nothing.
Get the fuck out, you know nothing.
Get the fuck out, you know nothing.
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:21:34 AM UTC+11, build wrote:
It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
As some of you know the Porsche's went from a proper race tyre to a low-profile some years ago. At Philip Island we lost 3 seconds a lap.
I know with the aero changes the cars were supposed to be faster but the loss from the tyres will be difficult to gain back.
Testing will be very interesting.
build
Now we've seen them on track.
I rest my case.
No, actually.
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 218:58:14 |
| Calls: | 139 |
| Files: | 752 |
| Messages: | 87,393 |
