iamcal.com Since May 2000

• Happy new year!
• Newbie topic - May 2016
• Newbie topic - April 2016
• Newbie topic - March 2016
• Newbie topic - February 2016
• Newbie topic - January 2016
• Newbie topic - November 2015
• Newbie topic - August 2015
• Newbie topic - July 2015
• Newbie topic - May 2015
• Newbie topic - April 2015
• Newbie topic - March 2015
• Newbie topic - September 2014
• Newbie topic - December 2014
• Newbie topic - October 2014
• Newbie topic - August 2014
• Newbie topic - July 2014
• Newbie topic - June 2014
• Newbie topic - May 2014
• Hello!

And I've come to the conclusion that I "would" all three sugababes. I've been umming and arring about Muntya but... it's a sugababe right? And there's always a small chance that I'll get one of the others on referral. :/

Just thought I'd let you all know.

what about the redhead that they kicked out
the one that could actually sing

She's certainly growing into herself.

I 'would' too.

I 'would' do all of Girls Aloud.

So would I. Although I can't help noticing that the once ginger one looks incredibly uncomfortable and out of place when performing. Like she doesn't really want to be there, or isn't enjoying it.

Weird.

I've seen people looking more like perormers at a Karaoke bar.

Yes - she's certainly the runt of the litter.

who wouldn't you do sul?
please restrict yourself to girl group types

Ooh!
The Pussycat Dolls, out of principal.

Them: "Don't you wish you girlfriend was hot like me?"
Me: "No."

principle

their burlesque stuff is pretty hot

I would do all the pussycat dolls, no bother. Exotic dancers? Are you kidding, Grim? Cos they'd be shit in bed, clearly.

Dumb arse. Principles be damned. Just wear a stainless steel condom just in case.

All I want for Christmas is Amerie.



I would certainly give her one thing for Christmas.

/me has a nasty image of a young black girl crying while a wrinkled, greying and sweaty old man is grunting on top of her

*shivers*

Ew.

eww that hair is fake
bet if you even touch it, it's falls off and she looks like brock

oooo
so it that why you want her then?

/me also has a nasty image of a young black girl crying while a wrinkled, greying and sweaty old man is grunting on top of her.

Hur hur.

Did someone say pussycat dolls?



Who wouldnt I do? - lets see. Joss Stone doesnt do it for me. I think it's because she comes across as stupid and I think she sings in an annoying voice.

plus she's like 12?

Exactly

nice fun-house-mirror pic there, wh

The Pussycat Dolls, out of principal.

Them: "Don't you wish you girlfriend was hot like me?"
Me: "No."

grim clearly adopted this position BEFORE seeing the video.

a rampant penis knows no principles.

i cast aside my mean-minded assessment of these girls' characters as soon as i saw their better sides shining through their scanty clothing. saints! saints, i tell you! but not in a chaste way, oh no, i mean in a hot dirty sweaty give-me-everything-i-want-because-that's-the-holy-thing-to-do way. which is the best way. yay way. (pun)

Oh what - WH can do a teen/early 20s girl but I cant do a 12 year old? Double standards.

WH's dirty filthy liasion isn't actually illegal, though. Sickening, but not illegal.

pah!

weaves don't come out easily, soo -- the head hair would most likely come out before a weave parted.


very hard to tell if that's real hair or not. the lack of top bulk/height suggests it's not a wig but her own hair straightened to hell, but the fringe's flare suggests it's either not real hair or that it's been further gelled (wig or her own hair).

also, it's kinda sparse and dry -- wig would most likely be heavier and less chemical-damaged.

given real hair's not that expensive (ever gone shopping for real hair? a surreal experience.) (hey, maybe brock should hook up with some of my ex-gfs), i'd lean slightly towards it just being hugely straightened then dyed and gelled and so on.

nice fun-house-mirror pic there, wh

I always have to have several goes at sizing (as the actress said...)

Looks a bit better now.

They really annoy me - same as Davina McCall. I know she's/they're fit, but I can't bring myself to feel attracted to them =/

Davina McCall is a bit horsey.

ride her all night

And Claudia Winkleman - ewwww. I'm sure she's a tranny.

can she pick up radio 1?

See with Claudia Winkleman I would. She's got "I've been on crack" eyes - I like that, same with Nicole Ritchie.

Winkleman has the weirdest fucking face though. And the shittest haircut.

OK, if I can't have Amerie, I'll have one of these

wow, that plane's floating -- look at the wing droop

S'made of balsa wood, innit.

you want to fuck a plane
pevert

FOUR rotary throats and a first-class fuselage that can go for longer than any other
mmmmm

AND it's got a cocktail bar in it

AND delightful accoutrements

I'd fuck a topless plane that'd be a real turn on. They don't let me out this cellar very often.

you want to fuck a plane

No, no, it's just that if I can't have Amerie I'll have a boy's toy instead. However, now I've given it more thought, I'd probably just crash the plane before it even got off the ground, so I'll have one of these Bugattis that Jeremey Clarkeson was orgasming over on this week's Top Gear. Won't be able to insure it, of course, but what a lark to have it parked outside Warhead Mansions.

Woo. sexy machine...

does it have a cocktail bar?

if not, can i have your A380 if you're not using it?

Yes, it's sexy alright, and it goes like greased shit off a shovel. Clarkson wants to marry it.

Salti, the A380 is only a scale model. You can't get inside it unless you're only 6 inches high and have been keeping this a secret from us.

bits of me are

those bits can fly the plane and get uproariously drunk then

WH: I've had a go in one of those =]
They RAWK!

What do you look like Salty? I am very curious, because I know what everybody else looks like except you!

We've had this conversation.
However, I must ask - how do you know what people look like?

Sorry, must have been when I was "not here." I know what everybody looks like from the various pics that were posted on the old iamcal. I still remember that one of you sitting with the beer can in front of the DJ thingy. You had headphones on. I am a stalk-ees nightmare. I remember everything.

Photographic reproductions? I know what most people on here look like, and I'm not even stalking them.

And as for the Bentley, my mate works for them and did a lot of the safety kit on it.

Bently?

wikky wikky one-can

We havent had a decent piss-take photo posted for AAAAAGES!

Man. What price actually reading the post rather than just assuming.

I seem to be having issues today.

:(

Did you not see the picture of the, you know, Bugatti?

Time for some ProPlus, methinks =]

how the hell did you get "a go" in one of those?

His dad works for Big Tom Bscher, President of Automobiles Bugatti, innit.

Aye, in Germany.

excellent

Obviously, I didn't get to drive, but I did get to sit in it and hold on.
It's insane in balls-out-no-downforce-suicide-mode.

Is it faster than a Ferrari?

Yes.
That includes the Ferrari F1 car.

Some drool-some figures:

Vehicle type: mid-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
Base price: €1,000,000
Engine type: quad-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 64-valve W-16, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 488 cu in, 7998cc
Power (SAE net): 1001 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 922 lb-ft @ 2200 rpm

Transmission: 7-speed tiptronic with automated shifting
Zero to 60 mph: 2.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 6.0 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 11.0 sec
Zero to 200 mph: 22.0 sec (!!)
Standing 1/4-mile: 10.8 sec @ 140 mph
Top speed: 253 mph (Limited (!!))
EPA city driving: 7 mpg
EPA highway driving: 10 mpg
Steady 253 mph: 3 mpg

I guess all that means it has the hooooogest turbo-chargers?

It has four hooooooooooge turbocharges, bolted on top of 2 4 litre V8's which are fused together.
Basically, it's 2 twin-turbo V8's in one engine, hence W16 =]

Grim: Bollocks. It's the fastest road car. It is nowhere near as fast as an F1 car.

How much does it weigh? None of the performance figures mean much without that.

7 mpg - is that good?

the M1A1 tank (yanks' main battle tank) gets 10gpm

here we see a tank crew running out of fuel fairly early in their deployment:

here we see a tank crew trialling a new "in-flight" refuelling depot:

bwah hah hah hahahahaaaaaaa
this PopUnder appeared when i closed those pics' google+resulttabs screen:

OK, I've had another think about this and the car is really no good to me. Some chav'll just scratch it or nick it, and it'll just get covered in bird shit on my drive, so I'll have Deanne Berry, please.

Grim: Bollocks. It's the fastest road car. It is nowhere near as fast as an F1 car.

Wrong!
In a straight line it eats F1 cars - weight or no weight you've never seen an F1 car go 250mph.

Weights:
Wheelbase: 106.3 in
Length/width/height: 175.8/78.7/47.5 in
Curb weight: 4300 lb

Christ on a bike. She's an Aussie (no offense, Salti). If I get her for Christmas I'm going to have to gag her ..... (hmmm, thinks 'that's not a bad idea anyway.')

Did you not know that, WH?
Maybe you should go for the guy in the reflection?

Me, I am totally wanting some Rhona Mitra action at the moment...

it's the bad girl with a brain thing?

Er...
She was in Hollow Man and Ali G: In Da House.
She was also the original motion capture model for Lara Croft.

More stuff with her in

Did you not know that, WH?

Nope.

Maybe you should go for the guy in the reflection?

But a man can dream, can't he?

Grim: Man, you have no fucking idea, do you?

That car weighs 2 tonnes. The only reason that you don't see an F1 car do 250mph is that there is no point. There were Le Mans cars that did 250mph 10 years ago, muppet. Don't tell me I'm wrong when you clearly have no fucking idea. Your entire frame of reference is road cars because they are the only ones that produce performance figures. Look at the power to weight numbers alone:

Buggatti pile of fancy stuff: 1000bhp and 2000kg = 500bhp per tonne.

F1 car: 605kg, 850-900bhp (conservative guess) = 1340bhp per tonne minimum!

That spread some enlightenment your way? The only way that the Bugatti does anything like the top end speed of an F1 car is that it has (comparatively) fuck all aerodynamics. Basically, it won't (by comparison) go around corners. If you cranked off the wing on an F1 car (and changed the ratios) it would do a fuck sight more than 250mph, but would fall off at the first corner - much like the Bugatti, only it would get there a lot sooner.

To suggest that that fat arsed Italian car is anything in the same league as an F1 car is mind-meltingly naive. Current F1 cars do 220mph at Indianapolis (tyres allowing) but also go around a pretty tight corner before it at close to 180-190 mph as well. They are FAR in advance of that heavy shitter. The only reason they don't top 250 on the straight is the fact that it is much more useful to lap times to do 190 around the corner before it.

It is the fastest road car ever. That is a brilliant achievement. But the fact remains that there are F1 and Le Mans cars (as well as Formula Nippon and F3000 cars) that have been faster and more capable than it for many years.

Bad luck. Wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.

Are you sure?

He's obviously got his Top Trump cards out for that one.

brock: you've reiterated grim's statement. right now, that bugatti's faster in a straight line than an F1 car. sure, if you started modifying F1 cars then your points have a point. but you're changing what he said, not responding to what he said

wh/grim: rhona mitra! she was in Nip/Suck recently in some hot hot 3 way action. yum and o.

she was lara croft?!!?!? seriously?

No, I said that they are NOT faster in a straight line than a Ferrari F1 car because of the Aerodynamics and gear ratio's being set for circuits. It will get to it's top speed faster than the Bugatti. Lots. Therefore it's faster. Change the ratios for the same purpose and crank the wings off (the equivalent of setting your seat and adjusting your mirror in the Bugatti) and it would also have a higher terminal velocity.

So, no. I'm not changing what he said, I'm just explaining that an F1 only goes 220mph at this precise moment in time because it is limited by the longest straight on an F1 circuit - Indianapolis. If it raced at Le Mans, then it would be set with a much higher top speed. It's purely a setting (or series of, anyway).

I agree with Grim.

There's a shocker.

:)

Brock, you're talking crap.

a) Obviously I meant road car - you can run off and start spouting about Le Mans cars if you want, it's not exactly going to outrun Thrust SCC is it?
b) Fact remains it's faster than an F1 car - until you change the F1 car so it isn't an F1 car any more (and then you could happily argue that you could start stripping weight out of the Bugatti, and remove the top speed limiter).
And weight (as you well know) is far more of a factor in accelleration than top speed.

Sad thing is, I think you knew you were wrong all the way through that rant of yours but you carried on anyway.
Wierd.

No fucking way. You're not understanding. An F1 car is far, FAR quicker until it hits the particular setting that they want for that circuit or it gets to the end of the straight. If it had a longer straight to go on, it would be faster. They put as many aerodynamic devices on a car as it can handle. If you don't need them, then you can move them (by putting a bolt in a different hole, basically) to give less downforce and so less drag.

There is no fucking way that the fat arsed Bugatti is faster than something that has nearly three times the power to weight. It just isn't physically possible. Taking the wing off and changing the ratios on an F1 car doesn't make it 'not an F1 car anymore'. Those changes are as routine and as normal as putting fuel in. I used Le Mans as an example because it (or used to) have a fecking long straight and cars regularly used to get to 250mph. For 24 hours. Heavier cars than F1, too, and with less power.

Power to weight is the presiding factor (it affects acceleration more but is still a factor), followed by aerodynamic efficiency (the ultimate limiter on top speed). Being as the aero efficiency of an F1 car is entirely adjustable (by design) that issue is moot. So it comes down to Power to weight. Check the figures again.

There are no parameters that the Bugatti is faster than an F1 car. So there's no point saying "Of course I meant road cars" when in the very next sentence you are claiming it IS faster than an F1 car. If you want to say it's the fastest road car, then you're right. It is NOT the fastest car - that includes F1, Le Mans cars, F3000, Indy, CART, Thrust SSC and all the others than are faster.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Taking the wing off an F1 car is hardly 'routine', it's fucking suicide.
Show me evidence of a Ferarri F1 car going faster than 250mph and I'll agree with you.

Hang on, don't F1 cars cut out if they reach a certain speed because that means the driver can't break / stop accelerating?

/starts digging

"Take the wing off" is an expression for reducing it's aerodynamic efficiency and drag. I didn't mean unbolt the thing! And it would be somewhat less than suicide if you're only going in a straight line, wouldn't it?

You'd fit less elements, reduce the severity of the chord (profile of the wing element) basically.

A Ferrari F1 car will do well over 250mph with the right aero and gear package. The drag produced by gving the car the ability to go around corners at 170mph+ is enormous. If you reduced that cornering ability (without removing it entirely) it would probably halve the drag. And they do 220 already carying all that wing...

It's just never has done because there's no point - there isn't a straight long enough. On any circuit or road course, an F1 car would destroy the Bugatti. The fact that it is significantly smaller frontal area (presiding drag factor) and that it has massive power to weight makes it obvious that it is more than capable of beating a Bugatti in every single respect.

Except comfort, wing noise and practicality. And the ability to listen to CD's, I imagine. Or have someone with you.

"F1 cars cut out if they reach a certain speed"

The only thing that restricts the speed is the rev limiter in top gear or the amount of wing they are carrying. There is no limit of any description like you are suggesting.

An optimum set up of ratio's would mean that you would touch the rev limiter at the last metre of the straight, so that you have available to you all the maximumpower and the easiest way of extracting it. There's no need for sitting at 3000rpm in top, because they just want to keep accelerating. So if the straight was 20m longer, then you'd put a slightly longer ratio in so that you hit the limiter in the same point.

(simplified. There are some considerations for slipstreaming and overtaking).

and cute looking-ness
I cant believe I read all that, must be sicker then I thought

even worse, im goint to ask an actual question:
did they not use to do speed tests with ickle cars in the desert with a parachute etc to do speed records ?
What about them ?

And cheapness.

And it would be somewhat less than suicide if you're only going in a straight line, wouldn't it?

I think it would take off, wouldn't it?

On any circuit or road course, an F1 car would destroy the Bugatti.

It sure would.
But there are rules in F1 about the minimum amount of downforce a car is allowed, and if you break the rules, surely it stops being an F1 car (in the same sense that a Veyron wouldn't be a road car if it couldn't pass an MOT). I'm not sure how much downforce is allowed

In the interest of safety, the FIA instituted a number of rule changes at the start of the 2005 season, including restrictions on the changing of tyres, downforce, and limiting the top speed to 250mph.

3mph out, Brockles old chap.
Sorry =D

Miki - yah, cars like Thrust SSC, mentioned earlier.
Thrust hit 763mph!

wauw
do you think they set the top speed delimitor thingy on your car to 253 because they knew they had made it 250 for the F1 so they can sell them as being faster then F1 cars ?
good marketing

No, it wouldn't take off. There's nothing to make it take off, as even the undertray produces significant downforce. The entire car produces downforce.

There is no minimum downforce requirement. Only areas of the car where you are allowed to put wings.

As for limiting: Why the fuck do they need to limit them if they can't go faster? Hmmmmm?

LOOOOOOOOOOSER!!!!!111111oneoenoenonejuan

(*^*&^*^(*&%^&%^&%

Why the fuck do they need to limit them if they can't go faster?

...F1 cars cut out if they reach a certain speed because that means the driver can't break / stop accelerating...

caps and multiple !'s
I think that means you loose this argument on technical grounds mr brockles

Oh right, I get what you mean.
I still think you'll find the Veyron is officially 3mph faster.

do you think they set the top speed delimitor thingy on your car to 253 because they knew they had made it 250 for the F1 so they can sell them as being faster then F1 cars ?

I'd imagine that's exactly what they did.

I think that means you loose this argument on technical grounds mr brockles

No, I lose due to lack of enthusiasm (it would would have been nice to see a few 111oneone's though, Brockles).

!"£$%^&*((*&^%$!Q"£$%^&*
Ta.

Ooh! Rouge Q!

No, you lose due to being King wrong of the incorrect people. Brandishing your sceptre of inaccuracy fiercely.

(one's added. Can't believe I forgot them, frankly)

Hmm. 250mph > 253mph - availible exclusively on Brock's planet =]

(Whoo - 100th reply!)

Fucker. I'd just noticed the 99th listing.

253 vs '250 nominally limited by a bit of legislation'?

F1 cars are faster, just don't get a chance to hit the top speed they are capable of on a circuit. Also, to do that speed on the circuits they currently race on is dangerous due to the force involved in an accident at that speed. They aren't limited because they can't go faster...

In all seriousness, that legislation isn't just for the cars. It is for the cars in the context withing which they race. Imagine an F1 car running over the rear wheel of another at 250mph at the end of a straight. The damn thing would probably clear the grandstands and land on a school or something. Schumachers shunt at Indy was monstrous, and that was (I think) something like 190 and straight into a wall so loads of the energy was dissipated fairly quickly. An F1 car at speed is an absolutely astonishingly impressive and scary thing to witness. I used to go and watch them testing at Silverstone in my lunchbreaks and they make every part of you shake. Even driving over the vehicle access bridge when they are going underneath you is awesome. It makes the bridge, your car and you all shake. Mega.

Fair enough, Brockles, I'm not arguing that an F1 car can't go faster than 250mph when unlimited, I'm arguing:
a) That the Bugatti is limited too
b) That an F1 car without a limiter stops being capable of competing in F1 races, hence it's not an F1 car
c) That 253mph is faster than 250mph

Y'know, if Grim had only said, 'It's the fastest car, EVAH!!!111' all this could have been avoided.

And I'd still like to have a quick work-out with Deanne Berry.

Annnnnd, I'd still like a Veyron. I could sell it and pay off me mortgage.

If a virtual car hits 255mph does it immediately revert to 1mph?

Imagine an F1 car running over the rear wheel of another at 250mph at the end of a straight.

I don't think that's the reason the F1 cars are limited - the engines will literally stop running if it gets to 250mph, because that would mean that the driver wasn't breaking for a corner, or something.
I remember that it was the reason for one of the McLarens (maybe DC) to retire, because his limiter got confused about the speed he was going and stopped the car.

I don't really understand all these cars. I mean they cost so much money, surely there is a cheaper way to tell people you have a tiny penis? A full page ad in the Telegraph for example.

Wasn't Rhona Mitra also in The Practice, opposite the deliciously bad "Alan Shore" character?

I have no penis
I love my car, she can't go 250 mph but she's blue

I have an extremely small penis.

But I have penis-envy.

"I love my car, she can't go 250 mph but she's blue"

That'll be the problem then, Miki. Everyone knows that red cars are faster. Unless you believe that bloody milky way advert.

I hate my car, it's blue.

My car is silver / grey (and definatly won't go 250mph - it won't even go 150mph, FFS).

Grim: That's probably just a software fuck up. Maybe a speed sensor showed a speed that the wasn't on the map, and it looked like DC had gone off the track to the computer. They are mapped to within an inch of their lives, with considerations for going off and all sorts, but dodgy sensors fuck things up, innit.

It probably thought that it was impossible for him to have gone so far (by going so fast for so long) and it caused the 'puters head to melt. Unless they make them write it into the software that to hit 250 generates a hard shutdown or something, due to the regulations, and he genuinely hit it for some reason. If so, you've just proved that they hit 250 easily... :p

But the size of a potential accident is the only reason that the FIA would have limited the speed.

hmm red cars may be faster but blue cars are cuter
and she has friendly looking headlights
(she can go faster than allowed so thats fast enough in my philosophy)

My car does 155mph. I also have a penis. I also see no fucking link at all between technology and penises.

Miki: Nope. No such thing as 'fast enough'. Same as no such thing as 'enough power'/naked chicks feeding me grapes.

:)

hahaha
/imagines a huge flock of naked girls carrying grapes barging into your house and trampling you in their quest to feed you

I think you can have too much of anything
but I am a girl so I'm still thinking if shoes and chocolate could be exceptions

What kind of *cough*penis* car, do you have Brock?

/imagines a huge flock of naked girls carrying grapes barging into your house and trampling you in their quest to feed you

/me drifts off

I must say, you do a damn brilliant rendition of not being gay, Brock. ;)

In all seriousness, that legislation isn't just for the cars. It is for the cars in the context withing which they race. Imagine an F1 car running over the rear wheel of another at 250mph at the end of a straight. The damn thing would probably clear the grandstands and land on a school or something.

yeah that sort of reason is why they put in rules to CAP the maximum downforce allowable, as the groundeffect could intermittently be lost due to odd bump, road shape, or turbulence from other cars. the car would then go from being a ground-based car to an air-borne tumbling missile -- very nasty crashes.

that's why fast cars have to make the tradeoff b/w lightness for acceleration vs weight for high-speed stability/controllability. downforce provides in essence artificial weight, but is unpredictably variable.

actually, the old Fiat X1/9s were too flat for their own good, and when they were raced, people would add 2-3 wheatsacks to the front boot to improve its speed. which is what, 20-25kg per sack? who here's a farmer?

"that's why fast cars have to make the tradeoff b/w lightness for acceleration vs weight for high-speed stability/controllability. downforce provides in essence artificial weight, but is unpredictably variable."

It is actually fairly predictably constant assuming the deviance of angle of attack to the airflow is kept within 10 degrees or so. So as long as the car isn't sliding, aero forces are pretty reliable and consistent. Pitch of the car (and by a lesser degree, Roll) also affects this, but heavily aero reliable cars are usually very stiff - The main reason for active suspension being developed was in an attempt to maintain a totally constant aero platform by eliminating pitch and roll. Once you start to go, though, it gets smelly, because the spin self perpetuates by taking the aero surfaces further out of efficiency. And round you go. *thump*

And I would have to contest the adding of weight for stability, Salti. That isn't true - although it would seem so by your X19 example. Weight is never added for stability, it is only there for functional strength or rigidity. Stability is only affected by weight distribution rather than total quantity. Otherwise bikes wouldn't work, innit. The sacks in the X19 were because they needed to change the massive rear bias of weight inherent in the design. If they had loads of money, they would have tried to do it without making the car heavier - fibreglass?kevlar/Carbon Fibre panels at the rear, lighter engine/gearbox etc. You would, given the choice, move the weight for stability, ratehr than add it. Adding it will always make the car slower, but it will perhaps corner marginally better/predictably. The play off may have been acceptable in ytour example, but only within a severely limited development budget, I'd have thought, I am sure I could have got the same/better results just through spring rates, ride heights and dampers. Other factors are the way that weight and suspension geomtry is affected during compression/expansion/loading effects, but initial good and static weight distribution makes the controlling the car bit a lot easier.

Ground effect was, as you say, particularly nasty. It was very much all or nothing as it relied totally on the car being a set distance from the ground, and all downforce was lost if that got too small or too big. So as soon as they started to go out of control, they were bloody missiles. The stiff springs that they had to use to keep the car at the right height made the fact that they were unsettled by bumps much worse, obviously. Banned through being death traps. Seems reasonable to me.

which is what, 20-25kg per sack

A little research tells me 18kg (40lbs).

Damn!! Outclassed - this from Computer Weekly.

The founder of Capita's latest acquisition, Quay Software Solutions, is spending his windfall wisely. Roland Rawisz-Szczerbo, who set up the business with co-founder Mitchell Philpott in 1995, is going to buy a second hand fighter jet. His only dilemma is whether to to buy the YAK52, the more aerobatic Extra300, or a Mig, as favoured by Oracle's Larry Ellison. Tough call.

A Yak 52 is a bloody single engined prop plane, not a jet. As is an Extra300 (both very popular aerobatic planes in this country). Neither of them were fighter aircraft ever. The Extra is a purpose built aerobatic plane, and the Yak was just a trainer. What a fantastically badly researched article. Man, I should get a job in journalism, it's clearly ripe for some people that can use their brain, or at the very least JFGI if they don't know.

the aero effect IS unpredictable EXCEPT in very very narrowly-varying predictable conditions, such as you get on a F1-capable race track. on the road: eek.
but even on the F1 track it broke too often for them to continue allowing it.

*thud*

Getting back to Brock's note, I shall drop them a line at CW to let them know they're talking bollocks.

If you replace "aero" with "Ground effect", then you're right. Given a reasonable level of control, roads are perfectly fine for maintaining consistent aero performance from wings and flat under body vs contoured overbody shape. Full race cars use shaped undertrays as well, which are more sensitive to vehicle attitude so usually not used on road cars (expect the silly ones - see below).

It's usually not worth it for road cars, though. You only get any effect over 45-50mph worth talking about/noticeable anyway, and you need lots of wings to get usable downforce over just gaining extra aero stability. Hardly any road cars produce any downforce of a significant magnitude. Only the more silly ones that are kind of track cars anyway - Lotus Exige, Zonda, higher Ferarris and the like. The sort of car that would be limited by the nature of the road itself to well below it's actual potential and so not be working it's aerodynamic surfaces anyway.

I'll be a lot happier when you're back in gainful employment.

Hahaha!

Sorry. My technical side is a bit under-demanded of these days. It likes to get out and stretch it's legs, you see.

And anyway, it gave you the chance to play smrt arse with the PC mag, didn't it?

'smrt arse'? I don't think they'd be too happy to hear you calling them that.

It's my natural magnetic personality shining through, Grim.

Maybe that's the reason all your credit cards have stopped working...

Hmmmm. It's possible I suppose. Although I can't help feeling that my phenomenal web-based porn and tissue purchases may have something to do with it...

mt car is purple and has cow pattern car seat covers

I agree with Brock.

I agree with me.

poll time
in an argument between these people, who do you agree with:

brock vs grim...
salti vs anyone
doc vs lucid
breagod vs the dictionary
alfie vs chandler
vic vs brock
sul
strawberry vs vanilla
jesse vs apathy

So... lonely :'(

edit: oooh luvvy - I'm favourite :)

thats cos you're my favourite and everyone has to pick you for that one :D

I have a nice bike and it is purple and it has two lights one at the front and one at the back and it has a bell and brakes and tyres and I ride it about town. I cannot think of the hot celebrity girl but i think she has hooooooge turbochargers.

ooh I bet purple is really fast

Doc did you get your prezzie yet? You're the only one outstanding.

I resent that!!11

Huh? What do you resent?

Where did you resend it to?

I'm sure she thinks you're outstanding too wh

Ohhhhh. You're lovely too, War. Love ya. ♥

Yes, cheers syl! Reply should be on its way soon

"This time the W12 smashed its existing world 24-hour speed record by 27.7 km/h, covering 7,749.4 kilometres at an average speed of 322.89 km/h - that's an extra 663 kilometres in the 24 hours."
www.gizmag.co.uk/go/1171


want

ooh fast car. me go fast. me real man.

sheesh.

Oooooh. moving pictures. me get geeky horny. me rub animated cock and spuff my load.

sheesh. How dare people like different things.

*Raises handbag*

Zip or clasp?

Huh? What do you resent?

What you said.

(It was a joke)

ah-haha! Sorry i'm a bit slow you know. You've known me for two years now, War, you should know that by now. ;)

I just come across this site by accident and I thought it was worth signing up to tell you guys like WARHEAD to get girlfreinds and stop wanking yourselves blind infront of your pc's. TOSSERS

Productive.

i just had a browse back over the thread to see what triggered this, and have been forced to the conclusion that beefsmoker can't read

Why does he pick on Warhead?

Because he's a twat.




So who am I talking about?
=]

So, after all this time your true feelings for me are revealed.

I HATE YOU!!11

/me runs away crying like a big girl.

There, there War. I still love you.