• Slower Tyres a Fashion Statement.

    From build@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 22 05:21:33 2022
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan the Man@21:1/5 to build on Sat Jan 22 08:04:05 2022
    On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 8:21:34 AM UTC-5, 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
    Sounds like a classic case of making a change just to ... make a change?

    Dan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Jackson@21:1/5 to Dan the Man on Sat Jan 22 11:08:31 2022
    On 1/22/2022 11:04 AM, Dan the Man wrote:
    On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 8:21:34 AM UTC-5, build wrote:

    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?
    AIUI Pirelli began asking for this some time ago, as the configuration
    is more relevant to development of the high-performance tires they are
    making for street use.

    --
    Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
    As for behavior, I have shocking news:
    Physicists can be arrogant. - Mike Tamor

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Jan 22 08:58:49 2022
    On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:25:49 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    ...why do the German touring cars use low profile tires?

    ...why do LeMans prototypes use low profile tires?

    You're the expert cock sucker.
    Fuck off and find out yourself.
    You fucking cunt.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to build on Sat Jan 22 08:25:46 2022
    On 2022-01-22 5:21 a.m., 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.

    So...

    ...why do the German touring cars use low profile tires?

    ...why do LeMans prototypes use low profile tires?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sat Jan 22 10:10:47 2022
    On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:23:23 AM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
    drunk Aussie troll wrote:

    It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile
    tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.
    How many cars do you see on the road with the same profile as an F1
    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.

    You seem unhinged.
    When was the last time you talked to your therapist?
    If build is causing you distress, put him back in your kill file.
    You fucking moron.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to drunk Aussie troll on Sat Jan 22 17:23:21 2022
    drunk Aussie troll wrote:

    It's getting ridiculous when the cars are put on slower low profile
    tyres simply to go with a ridiculous fashion.

    How many cars do you see on the road with the same profile as an F1
    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From XYXPDQ@21:1/5 to build on Sat Jan 22 11:00:40 2022
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to XYXPDQ on Sat Jan 22 11:10:29 2022
    On 2022-01-22 11:00 a.m., XYXPDQ wrote:
    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?

    From everything I've read to date, I'd say they're stiffer in absolute
    terms than the ones on the 13" wheels, but that allows you (at least in
    theory) to run lower pressures without the tire deforming to the point
    where it loses grip.

    Tire grip is maximized where the curve of the friction from the tread in contact with the road (which is higher at lower pressures) and the curve
    of deformation of the tires structure (which is higher at lower pressures).

    Basically, if the pressure is too high, there won't be as much tread in
    contact with the road as the contact patch is found by dividing the
    vertical load by the pressure. But if the pressure is too low, you'll
    start with a large contact patch, but the distortion of the carcass will
    reduce it again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Falscher Bruce@21:1/5 to build on Sat Jan 22 21:19:02 2022
    On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:21:34 PM 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.

    Did the Porsche have McPherson struts? They are crap with ultra-low profile tyres.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to build on Sun Jan 23 13:24:13 2022
    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.



    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sun Jan 23 09:40:16 2022
    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.

    What fascinates me is that people could possibly believe that a wheel
    size rule written decades ago could have just by happenstance produced
    the acme of tire grip.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rtr@21:1/5 to build on Thu Jan 27 23:02:10 2022
    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.

    --
    Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
    --
    gemini://rtr.kalayaan.xyz

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to rtr on Thu Jan 27 12:37:48 2022
    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 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.


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to geoff on Thu Jan 27 14:30:17 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Jackson@21:1/5 to Alan on Thu Jan 27 17:32:58 2022
    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.

    Pirelli’s 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/

    Pretty much what I posted in this thread five days ago.

    --
    Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
    As for behavior, I have shocking news:
    Physicists can be arrogant. - Mike Tamor

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From geoff@21:1/5 to rtr on Fri Jan 28 11:23:28 2022
    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.

    geoff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Mark Jackson on Thu Jan 27 15:25:32 2022
    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 <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.

    Pirelli’s 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/


    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"?

    ...

    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.

    :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Thu Jan 27 17:06:11 2022
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 4:25:35 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Would that diameter be 18"?

    I don't know.

    You talking to yourself?
    Your only friend.
    You fucking weirdo.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From build@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 00:12:16 2022
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 10:25:35 AM UTC+11, Alan wrote:
    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.

    Pirelli’s 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/


    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"?

    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.


    :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 10:13:12 2022
    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to build on Fri Jan 28 12:01:53 2022
    build wrote:


    As Pirelli have said the new tyres are 4
    seconds slower ! That's Pirelli saying that, not me.


    Pirelli are not saying that.


    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Jackson@21:1/5 to build on Fri Jan 28 11:48:45 2022
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Jan 28 10:12:23 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 10:51:12 2022
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 11:12:26 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    You're joking.

    only one joke here

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Mark Jackson on Fri Jan 28 11:22:22 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 11:29:44 2022
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:22:25 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    I find it hilarious

    small things amuse small minds

    I challenge anyone

    get a life asshole

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to build on Fri Jan 28 11:28:57 2022
    On 2022-01-28 12:12 a.m., build wrote:
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 10:25:35 AM UTC+11, Alan wrote:
    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.

    Pirelli’s 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/




    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"?

    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.

    So why don't they use 13" rims at LeMans?

    Don't they face precisely the same challenge?

    Even if Pirelli is saying that (and I'd like to see the quote), we
    already know that Pirelli is controlling the lap times and life times of
    F1 tires by the way they are designed.

    If they are saying that, why do you imagine it's an inevitable result of
    the increase in wheel diameter, and not something that the FIA has asked
    for?


    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.

    Yes. Low profile tires ARE less forgiving.

    So too, BTW, are slicks as opposed to treaded tires.

    In both cases, the low profile tire and the slick require greater
    precision from the driver, because the transition from having grip to
    not having grip gives less warning and is more abrupt.

    That doesn't mean that slicks will be slower, right?

    So why do you assume that low profile means slower?



    ...

    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.

    Tell me which racing engineers you asked to form your opinion first.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 19:40:11 2022
    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 19:41:52 2022
    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 11:46:55 2022
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:29:01 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Tell me which racing engineers you asked to form your opinion first.

    john smith
    happy now creepy?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Jan 28 12:00:11 2022
    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? 😎):

    '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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Jan 28 12:08:57 2022
    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"...

    <https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p1-hybrid.pdf>

    <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.


    That's where you start.

    If it were true...

    ...but it isn't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 21:10:53 2022
    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-hybrid.pdf>


    <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?


    That's where you start.

    If it were true...

    ...but it isn't.

    If what was true, fuckwit?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Jan 28 13:20:08 2022
    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-hybrid.pdf>


    <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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 21:18:54 2022
    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? 😎):

    '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?

    ?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 21:32:50 2022
    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-hybrid.pdf>



    <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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Jan 28 13:22:58 2022
    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? 😎):

    '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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Jan 28 13:48:49 2022
    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"...



    <https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p1-hybrid.pdf>



    <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?

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 21:58:57 2022
    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 21:51:55 2022
    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"...




    <https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p1-hybrid.pdf>




    <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?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 21:49:19 2022
    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? 😎):

    '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?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Jan 28 14:01:37 2022
    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"...




    <https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p1-hybrid.pdf>




    <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 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Jan 28 13:59:49 2022
    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? 😎):

    '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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Jan 28 14:04:46 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 14:16:06 2022
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 3:01:40 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Why are you arguing this, fuckwit?

    its all you have in your pathetic existence

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 14:20:27 2022
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 3:04:48 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    You have figured it VERY wrongly.

    shove your all caps up your rotten pussy
    you fucking queer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From build@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 17:26:52 2022
    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:
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to build on Fri Jan 28 17:49:50 2022
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:26:54 PM UTC-7, build wrote:

    Who said 13" was a *magic number* ?
    I can only see you saying that.

    yup, the guy is fucking clown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From build@21:1/5 to Mark Jackson on Fri Jan 28 17:25:36 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to build on Fri Jan 28 17:51:04 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Jan 28 18:05:12 2022
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to texas gate on Fri Jan 28 18:08:56 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rtr@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Jan 29 08:09:43 2022
    Alan <nope@nope.com> writes:

    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 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.


    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.


    Oh wow. I've never thought of it that way. But that makes sense.

    --
    Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
    --
    gemini://rtr.kalayaan.xyz

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rtr@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Jan 29 08:11:27 2022
    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:

    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.


    So they're trying to hit two birds with one stone?

    --
    Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
    --
    gemini://rtr.kalayaan.xyz

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to rtr on Fri Jan 28 23:39:38 2022
    On 2022-01-28 4:11 p.m., rtr wrote:
    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:

    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.


    So they're trying to hit two birds with one stone?


    Pirelli is a business and so anything that enhances their brand is going
    to be important to them.

    But the simple fact is that high performance cars aren't using low
    profile tires because they look cooler.

    A Ferrari 308 started out with 205/70R14 tires.

    Then it got 220/55R390 tires (390mm is 15.375")

    The 328 that replaced it was close to the same...

    ...but the 348 that replaced that had 215/50R17 tires in front, and
    255/45R17 rears.

    The F355 that replaced that had wider, lower profile tires still, and
    the trend has continued.

    And believe me:

    Ferrari doesn't do that for style.

    The Ferrari 488 can circulate the skidpad at about 1.02g...

    ...the 308: 0.81g

    Now some of that is down to the choice of tire compound, I'm sure.

    But not all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Jan 30 17:01:08 2022
    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Jan 30 17:07:21 2022
    Alan wrote:

    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"...





    <https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2018/24-heures-du-mans/regulations/2018-technical-regulations-lm-p1-hybrid.pdf>





    <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 tire manufacturers will build whatever you'll pay for.


    Have you any idea the cost of optimising a race specification tyre.


    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?

    Well, for one because you clearly are incapable of grasping the
    simplest point... which kind of makes you the fuckwit.


    The fact of the matter is that racing tires have migrated from
    narrow, high aspect ratio, to wide and very low aspect ratio.


    No, they haven't.

    F1 only kept using 13" wheels because the rules prevented them from
    going bigger.

    ...and water is wet. We know that.

    It also had more to do with brake size than any of the factors
    mentioned to date.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Jan 30 17:10:13 2022
    Alan wrote:

    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.

    4. There is no "perfect" size.

    Like many things it is a compromise.
    There are arguments for larger rims e.g. brake size
    There are arguments for smaller sidewalls e.g. stability
    There are arguments for the larger sidewalls as argued above.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sun Jan 30 17:26:06 2022
    Bigbird wrote:

    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.


    "No response, I get it"

    I am pretty sure I have only read about claimed relevancy to road
    tyres.



    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Jan 30 17:25:11 2022
    Alan wrote:

    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? 😎):

    '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."


    <crickets>



    '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


    Wrong, that something can be deduced is far from being easily
    comparable.
    Also if you have been paying attention to the thread in the slightest
    you know you differently and are basically lying, again.

    Yet you still choose not to give easily comparable profile figures.

    Hiding something... like ignorance?

    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.

    Of course it is an answer, I was clear that I had no reason to deny
    such a claim but okay let's test the claim.

    Do you deny that you have failed to substantiate any such a claim?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sun Jan 30 10:11:56 2022
    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.


    Sure. But if you'd actually been reading, I already did in another thread.

    Road tires are designated by section width then the section height
    expressed as a percentage and then finally the wheel diameter.

    So BMW (for instance) has 215/40R18 front tires and 245/35R18 rear tires.

    However, racing tires are often designated simply by section width,
    overall diameter and wheel size.

    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 before dividing by the width (305 or 405).

    Where you went wrong was failing to divide by two, so you got:

    (720-457.2)/305 = 0.86 (86%)
    (720-457.2)/405 = 0.86 (65%)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From build@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Jan 30 15:41:32 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From build@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Jan 30 15:33:54 2022
    On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 12:51:56 PM UTC+11, Alan wrote:
    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:
    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.

    You're implying it.

    I'm not implying that and I never have.
    You are either very mistaken or worse.
    (Alan, you should know that I never get distracted by strawman especially very pathetic strawman yours below.)


    Let me ask you:

    Would 14" rims work better or worse than the 13" rims for F1?

    How about 15"?

    16?

    17?

    18?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to build on Sun Jan 30 21:58:21 2022
    On 2022-01-30 3:41 p.m., build wrote:
    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.


    Oh, please...

    Make a decent argument, would you?

    Are you saying that F1 cars are faster BECAUSE of 13" wheels?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Mon Jan 31 06:58:53 2022
    On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:58:24 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Are you saying that F1 cars are faster BECAUSE of 13" wheels?

    Take your gay ass all caps and shove
    them up your diseased worn asshole.
    You queer fuck.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 1 00:30:12 2022
    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


    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Mon Jan 31 17:47:04 2022
    On 2022-01-31 4:30 p.m., 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.

    Take a look in the mirror some time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ~misfit~@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Tue Feb 1 17:57:29 2022
    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).

    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
    in the DSM"
    David Melville

    This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ~misfit~@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 1 23:38:01 2022
    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.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
    in the DSM"
    David Melville

    This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 1 14:03:11 2022
    ~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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From News@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Tue Feb 1 10:00:08 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 1 08:37:30 2022
    On 2022-02-01 2:38 a.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    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!

    :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 1 09:22:29 2022
    On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 9:37:33 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Yup!

    fuck off simpleton

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to News on Tue Feb 1 18:24:25 2022
    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."

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Tue Feb 1 11:55:04 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 1 12:24:11 2022
    On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 12:55:07 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    It is amusing

    small things amuse small minds

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 1 21:06:28 2022
    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From News@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Tue Feb 1 16:07:42 2022
    On 2/1/2022 4:06 PM, 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.


    ROFLMAO, a RASF1 Liars' Clinic!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Tue Feb 1 14:21:44 2022
    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.'

    <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata/c/Lc-YwDUjRuk/m/fX7iXIFo9q4J>

    That was written in 2010.

    If you had any class, you'd apologize.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Tue Feb 1 14:31:48 2022
    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>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 1 14:32:31 2022
    On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 3:21:48 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    If you had any class, you'd apologize.

    lol. you fucking dumb cunt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 1 14:50:52 2022
    On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 3:21:48 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    If you had any class, you'd apologize.

    ya because you have so much class lol

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 1 16:54:25 2022
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to texas gate on Tue Feb 1 19:07:49 2022
    On 2022-02-01 4:54 p.m., texas gate wrote:
    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?

    Why?

    Do most 12 year olds have that collection?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 2 10:25:21 2022
    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

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 2 10:27:17 2022
    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.'


    <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata/c/Lc-YwDUjRuk/m/fX7iXIFo9q4J>

    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?


    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Wed Feb 2 09:27:53 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Wed Feb 2 09:28:48 2022
    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.'


    <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata/c/Lc-YwDUjRuk/m/fX7iXIFo9q4J>

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 2 09:54:33 2022
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:28:51 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    What misrepresentation would that be?

    What falsehoods?

    you fucking stupid trolling cock sucker

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 2 09:56:09 2022
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:27:57 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    So you looked, saw it was all books on vehicle dynamics, and punked.

    fuck off brain dead

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 4 22:11:12 2022
    Alan wrote:

    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.'



    <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata/c/Lc-YwDUjRuk/m/fX7iXIFo9q4J>

    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.


    Show your "class" Baker.

    When is the last time you apologized for the litany of falsehoods in
    which I have caught you?

    What falsehoods?

    As if you don't know. It's habitual; you always end up lying when put
    in a corner.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 4 22:12:26 2022
    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.



    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 4 22:15:06 2022
    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.

    :-)

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Feb 4 17:09:22 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Feb 4 17:03:11 2022
    On 2022-02-04 2:11 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
    Alan wrote:

    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.'



    <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata/c/Lc-YwDUjRuk/m/fX7iXIFo9q4J>

    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.

    Ducked again, I see.

    I showed proof positive that I know all about this stuff and when
    challenged...

    ...you punked.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Feb 4 17:10:10 2022
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 4 17:48:17 2022
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:09:25 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Just a few of the books salient to the topic I own and have read and
    re-read over the years.

    Wow thats pretty damn impressive.
    Go get a hero cookie from the cupboard.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 4 17:49:45 2022
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:10:12 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    You made an ass of yourself again, then:

    pot kettle

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Feb 5 07:32:52 2022
    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.

    :-¦

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Feb 5 07:27:49 2022
    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.

    You certainly are one dumb son of a bitch... and you don't mind who
    knows it.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sat Feb 5 01:15:44 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sat Feb 5 01:17:33 2022
    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.


    <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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Feb 5 09:33:59 2022
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:15:47 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    It was a picture of those books.

    tit

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Feb 5 09:34:32 2022
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:17:36 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    That's a pertinent fact.

    tit

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Feb 6 15:20:28 2022
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:15:47 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    It was a picture of those books.

    do you have access to a gold star?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Feb 6 22:11:02 2022
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:15:47 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    It was a picture of those books.

    fuck me gently

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Feb 6 22:18:23 2022
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:15:47 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    It was a picture of those books.

    lol

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Mon Feb 7 09:49:32 2022
    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?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Mon Feb 7 09:47:29 2022
    Alan wrote:

    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.



    <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.

    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.


    Nope. No more than having gardening books prove I know what a perennial
    is.

    :-)



    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.


    Those are the words of an ignorant cunt.


    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.


    No, really... really quite a lot.


    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.


    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.

    That's a pertinent fact.

    YAWN!

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Mon Feb 7 15:08:51 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Mon Feb 7 15:09:51 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 8 21:33:14 2022
    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.


    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 8 21:29:51 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    (cute that, having just picked you up for your incorrect use of quotes,
    you demonstrate again that you are clueless when it comes to quoting)


    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...


    Sorry, you are making things up again.

    It's like you can't help but use falsehoods to prove what a dishonest
    ignorant cunt you are.

    ...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.

    Oh, I'd say that is a perfect demonstration of YOUR ignorance.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Tue Feb 8 14:30:58 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Tue Feb 8 14:31:24 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 8 18:02:26 2022
    On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.

    you brain dead fucking idiot

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 9 19:44:26 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    Claiming you know otherwise is a falsehood; a damn lie when repeatedly
    asserted as you have.

    Something you have made a habit of.

    You are literally an habitual liar.

    If it had actually been a concept you understood, you would have done
    the math differently.

    Wrong. You really are that stupid.

    :-)

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 9 19:45:42 2022
    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.

    I am dealing with that!

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Wed Feb 9 13:01:38 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Wed Feb 9 13:06:51 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 9 13:18:44 2022
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 2:06:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    No, I haven't.

    you sad fuck

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 9 13:20:38 2022
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 2:01:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your
    ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.

    blow yourself

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 9 21:31:36 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    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.

    There is no alternative no matter how much you choose to invent,
    misrepresent or lie.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 9 21:34:15 2022
    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Wed Feb 9 13:42:36 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 9 13:55:58 2022
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 2:42:52 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    LOL!

    fucking simpleton

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Thu Feb 10 13:02:16 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Thu Feb 10 13:54:42 2022
    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"?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Thu Feb 10 11:20:02 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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?

    Dude... ...you're thrashing.

    The key point is that you didn't understand that the the profile height
    is included twice in the overall diameter.

    Your failure wasn't your arithmetic: it was your understanding of the
    situation to begin with.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Thu Feb 10 11:31:07 2022
    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.

    The figures used to do the calculations to convert from racing tire
    sizing nomenclature to street tire nomenclature were:

    305/720R18 front and 405/720R18 rear.

    There is no RIM width in there.

    305 & 405 are the TIRE section widths.

    So first you got your calculation wrong because you didn't understand
    that there are two tire profile heights in the overall diameter.

    Then you claimed you "calculated the tyre width less the rim
    width", which makes no sense BOTH because the rim width wasn't given AND because it doesn't give you any number that in any way figures into the
    process of converting the nomenclature.

    Then you said you mean "rim diameter" and so your statement became,
    "calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter", and that result
    doesn't figure into the calculation you were supposed to do.

    Then, because I can actually understand what your stated numbers imply,
    I can tell you what you actually DID.

    "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."

    What you actually DID was subtract the rim diameter (RD) from the
    overall diameter (OD) and then divide by the section width. I know this, because both of your figures for tire profile height ratio ("65" and
    "86") are precisely TWICE the correct figure.

    Ergo, you failed to understand that OD-RD is TWICE the tire profile height.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Feb 13 19:04:48 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original numbers
    calls into question your claimed understanding of the whole subject.

    Are you lying about everything or just more stoopid than you realise?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Feb 13 19:08:56 2022
    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?


    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sun Feb 13 12:45:39 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:08:58 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:

    Does your ignorance know no bounds?

    or your trolling

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sun Feb 13 16:29:37 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sun Feb 13 16:27:41 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Feb 13 16:31:38 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 5:29:39 PM UTC-7, 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?

    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.

    you will lick big turds nut sack
    you sick fuck

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 16 11:01:13 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.


    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?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 16 11:09:01 2022
    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.

    You don't believe half the shit you write... and you know it is shit.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Wed Feb 16 03:41:05 2022
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Wed Feb 16 03:37:25 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 16 12:02:36 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 16 11:52:40 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Thu Feb 17 15:34:39 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    I not only knew that you'd got it wrong without even a need to check the
    math, but I knew exactly what mistake you made.

    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").

    I have lived and breathed this stuff since I was in my teens.

    You bluster and call me "liar" whenever you can't figure out what's
    actually going on.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Thu Feb 17 15:35:25 2022
    On 2022-02-16 4:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
    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.


    Then get to it, asshole.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Thu Feb 17 15:39:47 2022
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:34:44 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Dude... ...give it a rest.

    Dude someone to their face
    and get your ass handed to you
    fucking pencil neck pussy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Thu Feb 17 15:41:41 2022
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:35:27 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Then get to it, asshole.

    he is all you have
    you pathetic fuck

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 18 10:15:07 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    You don't have an honest word to say on this subject.

    Just bluster, misrepresentation and lies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Feb 18 02:17:35 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 18 10:21:12 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 18 10:37:31 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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?

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Feb 18 02:43:27 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 18 11:59:29 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Fri Feb 18 14:13:50 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 18 14:59:08 2022
    On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 3:13:52 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    You're a pussy.

    and you a fucking idiot

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 18 16:02:59 2022
    On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 3:13:52 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    You snipped my text

    oh poor, pathetic, stupid you.
    please take care of your sad self
    during this difficult time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Feb 19 11:56:37 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sat Feb 19 16:35:53 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Feb 19 16:43:06 2022
    On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:35:56 PM UTC-7, 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.

    fuck off cunt hole
    fuck are you dim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Feb 19 16:52:35 2022
    On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:35:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    snipped

    your special needs father should have been snipped.
    then unable to procreate a piece of shit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sat Feb 19 16:56:44 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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?

    The figures were the sizes of front and rear tire expressed in overall
    width (in millimetres), the overall diameter (in millimetres), and the
    rim diameter (in inches).

    These were given as 305/720R18 (front), and 405/720R18 (rear).

    What wasn't included in the figures that have been published is the rim width...

    ...so when you said you got it wrong because you calculated "tire width
    less rim width" that couldn't have been right. It also isn't any part of calculating the numbers you ended up giving for tire size expressed in
    the manner used for road cars:

    "305/86 R18" for fronts

    "405/65 R18" for rears.

    I know this, because I now precisely how you arrived at those numbers:

    You took the overall DIAMETER of the tire.

    Subtracted the rim diameter.

    Divided that result by the tire section width.

    Then multiplied by 100 and rounded off.

    e.g for the fronts:

    round((720-18*25.4)/305*100) = 86

    for the rears:

    round((720-18*25.4)/405*100) = 65

    At no time did "tire width less rim width" enter into the calculation.


    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.

    That would have made your claim that you used "tire width less rim
    width" into "tire width less rim diameter"...

    ...which is every bit as nonsensical.


    You have since made a number of inane claims that make no sense
    whatsoever about what I calculated.

    Such as?


    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.

    No. I knew exactly what you did, and when attempted to explain what you
    did, you made basic errors that no one who actually understood this
    stuff would ever make.


    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?


    Now we both know you have nothing new to say and will simply be
    dishonest and try to obfuscate.

    And yet it is you who always actually obfuscates the discussion by
    snipping what has gone before before declaring it all lies.


    That being the case why not just GO FUCK YOURSELF.

    Why don't you come and make me, pussy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Feb 19 17:01:37 2022
    On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:56:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Why don't you come and make me, pussy.

    lol

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Feb 19 18:36:29 2022
    On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:56:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Why don't you come and make me, pussy.

    Is that your business motto at your
    certified senior instructor racing school?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan LeHun@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 20 10:44:51 2022
    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?


    --
    Alan LeHun

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Feb 20 13:13:32 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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.

    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.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 20 13:50:32 2022
    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?







    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sun Feb 20 05:31:40 2022
    On 2022-02-20 5:27 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
    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:
    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.

    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?


    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.

    Says the guy who snipped literally everything I wrote in my post.

    I know precisely how to calculate these profiles.

    I've know for more than 40 years.

    You are just covering for your utter cluelessness.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Feb 20 13:27:37 2022
    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:
    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.

    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?


    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.


    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sun Feb 20 15:26:13 2022
    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.

    The F1 rear tire is 405/32R18, and a van tire might be (checking online
    for a Ford Transit T350) 235/65R16 (so 712mm in overall diameter to the
    F1 tire's 720), and my BMW's rear tire is just under 630mm in diameter so:

    <https://www.dropbox.com/s/jevgt0jmysch2af/Screen%20Shot%202022-02-20%20at%203.23.03%20PM.png?dl=0>

    From left to right, that's a 2021 F1 rear tire, a 2022 F1 rear tire,
    the rear tire from my BMW, and the tire from a Ford Transit Van.

    Can you really not see that the 2022 F1 tire is an evolution between the
    2021 tire and the proportions of the BMW tire?

    Reall?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Sun Feb 20 16:15:57 2022
    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...

    ...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.

    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!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Sun Feb 20 16:21:17 2022
    On 2022-02-20 2:44 a.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
    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?



    If the family is small...sure!

    2-door performance coupe.

    320hp

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to texas gate on Sun Feb 20 18:39:55 2022
    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 deal
    you pussy

    Tell us what you drive, big boy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Feb 20 18:46:02 2022
    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:

    320hp

    big fucking deal
    you pussy
    Tell us what you drive, big boy.

    M5 500hp

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Feb 20 18:31:27 2022
    On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    320hp

    big fucking deal
    you pussy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Feb 20 18:33:06 2022
    On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    performance coupe.

    hey thats fucking great it has performance
    you fucking weirdo

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to texas gate on Sun Feb 20 20:41:24 2022
    On 2022-02-20 6:46 p.m., texas gate wrote:
    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:

    320hp

    big fucking deal
    you pussy
    Tell us what you drive, big boy.

    M5 500hp

    Sure.

    Sure you do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Mon Feb 21 11:49:20 2022
    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.






    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Mon Feb 21 11:51:12 2022
    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 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.

    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.


    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.


    A Eunuch like you suggesting anyone needs to grow a pair to deal
    with your infantile fabrications is hilarious.

    LOLOOLOL!



    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan LeHun@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 21 20:41:28 2022
    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.



    --
    Alan LeHun

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Mon Feb 21 14:52:42 2022
    On 2022-02-21 12:41 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
    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.

    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/>

    As the review points out, it's not a great track car, but that's
    perfectly alright. I already have one of the best track cars there is:

    A 1998 Van Diemen RF98-2 Honda.

    :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 22 07:31:31 2022
    On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 3:52:46 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Practical enough for transporting up to 4 normal size human beings

    In your case that would be 1 subhuman and zero passengers ever.
    As you have no fucking friends.

    with trunk big enough to swallow my golf clubs or my hockey bag.

    Swallow? You are fucked in the head.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan LeHun@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 22 20:10:53 2022
    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 LeHun

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Tue Feb 22 13:00:59 2022
    On 2022-02-22 12:10 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
    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.

    Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal
    level of experience with any of this is.


    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/>





    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Tue Feb 22 13:26:16 2022
    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
    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.

    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.

    You've snipped text and then declared what you snipped to be falsehoods
    without any further explanation.



    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.

    All you'd need to do is provide an example...

    ...but we both know that's not going to be forthcoming, don't we?

    :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Tue Feb 22 13:25:03 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 22 14:10:35 2022
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 2:01:04 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal
    level of experience with any of this is.

    fuck off cock sucker

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 22 14:21:09 2022
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 2:01:04 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Before I even bother addressing any of this,

    you fucking piece of shit

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Tue Feb 22 14:52:38 2022
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 2:01:04 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal
    level of experience with any of this is.

    lol. Alice Baker has his panties in a knot
    because he drives a girly car.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan LeHun@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 23 05:27:00 2022
    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.

    --
    Alan LeHun

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Tue Feb 22 21:39:56 2022
    On 2022-02-22 9:27 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
    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.

    So you have no actual experience of any car that you claim is beyond a
    BMW in driving experience.

    Got it.


    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.

    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?


    Personally, I have no objection to your choice of car.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 23 12:20:23 2022
    Alan wrote:

    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
    ...

    ...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.

    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.


    LIAR.

    What a really stupid lie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 23 12:36:15 2022
    Alan wrote:

    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.

    WOW! Just fucking WOW!

    Are you really being that slow? This whole tread was about the
    perception of a "low-profile" tyre.

    I am not even going to deal with your additional falsehoods and misrepresentations above but just repost what I said before your
    tedious litany of falsehoods

    "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."



    --
    Bozo bin
    Felicity
    George R
    Irving S
    Texasgate
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan LeHun@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 23 14:15:48 2022
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 23 07:19:35 2022
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 10:39:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    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?

    Wholy chip on shoulder.
    Just enjoy your girly car, pussy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Wed Feb 23 08:48:40 2022
    On 2022-02-23 4:20 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
    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 know what would really have shown me up?

    Posting a quote and a link where you actually did what you claim.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Wed Feb 23 08:47:55 2022
    On 2022-02-23 6:15 a.m., 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'm not being evasive at all.

    You've made claims and now we know they aren't from your personal
    experience, so I'd like to know what the basis for your claims is.


    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.

    And I'm simply curious where you get the notion that high-skill drivers
    pass over BMWs...

    ...because my guess is that you read it once somewhere and that's all.


    I'll leave it there.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 23 09:00:53 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 9:47:58 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    You've made claims and now we know they aren't from your personal
    experience

    Who is 'we'?

    ...because my guess is that you read it once somewhere and that's all.

    Keep on guessing asshole.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan LeHun@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 23 23:05:50 2022
    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.


    --
    Alan LeHun

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Feb 23 15:30:52 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 4:21:05 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Do you ever examine what you say before you say it?

    Always the cunt.
    FOAD asshole.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Wed Feb 23 15:21:02 2022
    On 2022-02-23 3:05 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
    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.

    You get that they are GIFTED those cars, right?

    And how does a Fiat show any cred?


    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.

    Let's not.

    Because it assumes facts you've yet to actually prove.


    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.

    So you imagine that BMWs are somehow "by law" limited in how they handle...

    ...but Mercedes are somehow not?

    Do you ever examine what you say before you say it?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ~misfit~@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Thu Feb 24 14:06:32 2022
    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.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
    in the DSM"
    David Melville

    This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 23 17:24:14 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 6:06:34 PM UTC-7, ~misfit~ wrote:

    Your answer is in your assumption that you're talking with a 'high-skill driver'.

    x2

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 23 20:13:56 2022
    On 2022-02-23 5:06 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    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 am a high-skill driver.

    I'm a qualified racing driving instructor.


    I'll leave it there.

    Me too.

    Run away, Shaun!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Thu Feb 24 07:25:48 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 9:13:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    I am a high-skill driver.

    I'm a qualified racing driving instructor.

    you are fucking buffoon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Thu Feb 24 13:44:03 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 9:13:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    I am a high-skill driver.

    I'm a qualified racing driving instructor.

    thanks grandpa

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Thu Feb 24 13:54:48 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 9:13:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    I'm a qualified racing driving instructor.

    For steam powered cars?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Carmody@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Wed Mar 9 18:56:15 2022
    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.

    Phil
    --
    We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
    -- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Phil Carmody on Wed Mar 9 09:12:00 2022
    On 2022-03-09 8:56 a.m., Phil Carmody wrote:
    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, 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).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed Mar 9 13:54:36 2022
    On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 10:12:04 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    To be fair,

    Fair? Yet you condone cheating in auto racing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan LeHun@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 10 06:02:08 2022
    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.

    --
    Alan LeHun

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan LeHun@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 10 05:53:57 2022
    In article <87zglznjyo.fsf@zotaspaz.fatphil.org>, pc+usenet@asdf.org
    says...
    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.


    Quite the opposite. I thought he 'disliked' bmw's. I see he has done a
    youtube video on his m2. I'll try and find time to watch it this
    evening.

    --
    Alan LeHun

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Thu Mar 10 06:53:18 2022
    On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 11:02:12 PM UTC-7, Alan LeHun wrote:

    Meh. I wasn't referring to the 135 or your choice of car specifically.

    Yup, but alan was too fucking stupid to figure that out.
    He has that chip on his shoulder, resulting in his idiotic reply.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Thu Mar 10 09:58:53 2022
    On 2022-03-09 10:02 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
    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.

    Based on very little. I know.


    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.

    Do that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Thu Mar 10 15:04:01 2022
    On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 3:57:06 PM UTC-7, Alan LeHun wrote:

    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.

    x2

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Thu Mar 10 15:03:26 2022
    On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 10:58:55 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Based on very little. I know.

    You know fuck all.
    Proven over and over.

    Do that.

    FOAD cocksucker.
    Do that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan LeHun@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 10 22:57:04 2022
    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.




    --
    Alan LeHun

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Thu Mar 10 15:50:56 2022
    On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 3:57:06 PM UTC-7, Alan LeHun wrote:

    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.

    Fuckhead drives a girly car.
    Got called on it.
    Then got his panties in a bunch.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 10 16:12:53 2022
    On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 10:58:55 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Hang on to that 300hp
    in your full size car.
    LOL
    You fucking pussy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Alan LeHun on Thu Mar 10 20:51:51 2022
    On 2022-03-10 2:57 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
    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.


    You weren't questioning it.

    You claimed...

    Most likely based on one thing you heard from one driver.

    ...that all serious racing drivers don't like BMWs.

    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.

    Great.

    Get the fuck out, you know nothing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Mar 11 07:08:49 2022
    On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 9:51:55 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Get the fuck out, you know nothing.

    LOL. Looks like he hit a nerve regarding your girly car.
    He got your panties in bunch.
    You fucking pussy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Mar 11 07:35:05 2022
    On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 9:51:55 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Get the fuck out, you know nothing.

    LOL. Thanks certified racing instructor.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Mar 11 22:03:50 2022
    On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 9:51:55 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

    Get the fuck out, you know nothing.

    Got a link to your certified racing instructor training?
    It sounds fun.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From build@21:1/5 to build on Fri Mar 18 09:01:38 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to build on Fri Mar 18 09:24:34 2022
    On 2022-03-18 9:01 a.m., build wrote:
    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.

    Because the cars and their aerodynamics are massively different.

    Racing series with free choice in tires use lower profile tires than F1.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From texas gate@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Mar 18 09:38:20 2022
    On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:24:37 AM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

    No, actually.

    You rotten, pig hole, trolling, piece of shit,
    cock sucking, asshole.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)