So Much for AWD - Page 26 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

layback40 · #**376** 04-24-2013, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ned2683

you provided a reference and claimed it was the end all be all study, yet you cannot give details on it?

Actually when i was a part of a research group that did experiments in Germany 5 years ago we had a state of the art technical testing lab. We had access to ice and dirt tracks as well as road courses, the project was funded by the top names in the automotive industries. We found that the affects of AWD was not beneficial to road courses and repeated this results several times with a 99% confidence level. of course this study is not available to the general public and i should ask you to take my word for it because this study was done after your study.

Maybe you could try using Google Scholar some time.
Your use of Wikipedia has already tainted your credibility.
I would suggest that your 99% claim is BS & just demonstrates your lack of professional technical training. Do you even know what Hypothesis testing is? ~ watch him go running to Wiki !!

layback40 · #**377** 04-24-2013, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

If I cannot succeed in getting another to understand the aspects of clarity in the terms they themselves used in linking to them, as well as the testing differences as presented by them, i.e. my last two posts with examples CCed and referenced - I don't know what to tell them.

I cannot get any more clear than crystal clear.

Joe,
Best not let some one drag you down to their level & then beat you with experience!!

You probably know the original saying, but I cant say it here for fear of an infraction.

t walgamuth · #**378** 04-24-2013, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ned2683

i dont agree with you, but i dont see how we can settle this short of the person that made the rule clarifying it.

the formula ford requires a restriction plate most likely because you cannot have a AWD formula ford as they are mid mount RWD no?

and i think we are saying the same thing here, an AWD can have advantage in the dry considering there is no weight penalty. If you have can have the same weight then why not use AWD? if they run in ****ty courses, or in the wet they would blow the other cars off the door. and if they are running on a dry track that all the grip and power can be had then they should handle the same as a RWD car as well. so to level it out they added weight penalty as an AWD car is typically heavier.

you are probably aware of this that despite running R comps on a dry pavement, not all locations have the same grip. I ran on a course with "fresh" concrete and it was surprisingly slippery (had a talcum like coating on it)

Formula fords are a rwd class only so the AWD cannot apply. I used FF as an example of the scca equalizing performance between the old style ford motors (1.6 liter pushrods with carburators) and the Honda Fit motors which are modern motors with many modern features. They limit the horsepower by restricting the air inlet.

As for the AWD in the D and E modified classes? They are required to carry extra weight because of the advantage of AWD in all conditions. It is an attempt to equalize the performance by forcing the better gripping AWD cars to carry extra weight to slow them down. Remember modified classes are tube frame cars with silhouette bodies. To create classes with similar performance capabilities they are classified by weight and engine size with special provisions for other possible similar configurations such as if the car is built featuring AWD.

We don't have to ask the rule maker why, it is clearly an attempt to equalize performance through handicapping.

ned2683 · #**379** 04-24-2013, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by layback40

Maybe you could try using Google Scholar some time.
Your use of Wikipedia has already tainted your credibility.

You made up a study and when asked to provide proof you refuse to provide. then gave a "The study I mentioned is not freely available. If you were involved in appropriate research at a suitable university you may be able to get access."

what a bunch of BS, so Subaru had a study to prove that their AWD system is the best and yet they want to keep it to themselves. oh no what would happen if the world found out? give me 1 reference from another source that such study exist.

again i am not asking anything more from you than to back up your claim

Quote:

Originally Posted by layback40

I would suggest that your 99% claim is BS & just demonstrates your lack of professional technical training. Do you even know what Hypothesis testing is? ~ watch him go running to Wiki !!

someone doesn't understand sarcasm? i wasn't really a part of the study, i think the comment right after with the rolling around laughing was obvious? i was making a point that i can make up some study and claim that it cannot be access by the public either.

ned2683 · #**380** 04-25-2013, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Formula fords are a rwd class only so the AWD cannot apply. I used FF as an example of the scca equalizing performance between the old style ford motors (1.6 liter pushrods with carburators) and the Honda Fit motors which are modern motors with many modern features. They limit the horsepower by restricting the air inlet.

As for the AWD in the D and E modified classes? They are required to carry extra weight because of the advantage of AWD in all conditions. It is an attempt to equalize the performance by forcing the better gripping AWD cars to carry extra weight to slow them down. Remember modified classes are tube frame cars with silhouette bodies. To create classes with similar performance capabilities they are classified by weight and engine size with special provisions for other possible similar configurations such as if the car is built featuring AWD.

We don't have to ask the rule maker why, it is clearly an attempt to equalize performance through handicapping.

Look, i think we are circling around the same point. obviously there is a penalty given to AWD in those classes i agree with that. i already stated this in my post 258 :

Quote:

Originally Posted by ned2683

with the same minimum weight (1415lb) the AWD car theoretically will turn/brake and accelerate as fast as the RWD car (assuming race tires have the grip necessary for both). with the added benefit of possibly gaining any additional traction on loose surfaces.

In this specific example it does not include any of the downfalls of a typical AWD street car.

so you are trying to make a point i already made. yeah the awd will benefit since track conditions are not frictionless, what if it rains?, what if its cold.

also if AWD had such advantage, why was there only 1 car ranked in DM and EM at the nationals? obviously wasn't worth the extra weight.

and please please please answer this:
1. do you agree that an AWD car is heavier than a RWF/FWD of the same kind because of the extra differential and drive shafts

2. do you believe a lighter car will out perform/handle a heavier car of the same type?

if you answer no to either one of those you don't know what you are talking about.

ned2683 · #**381** 04-25-2013, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by layback40

Joe,
Best not let some one drag you down to their level & then beat you with experience!!

You probably know the original saying, but I cant say it here for fear of an infraction.

You sir, are a pretty nasty individual. I looked back at your comments on this thread and all you provided were personal attacks and shooting people down claiming they don't know anything while not really contributing to the discussion. I believe you are here to troll and get people worked up. I will probably just ignore you. but if you do find that study please let me know.

I'll admit it that i did joined this discussion because i was a little irritated at your personal attacks towards BC. you were calling him out on his father and his credentials while not really debating him with logic. I typically use this website strictly for car advice and decide to browse since i have a 85 300D i am freshening up this summer.

I always had high respects for members on this board and thought it was professional. but obviously there is a lot of history during the times i was MB less and didn't frequent the site.

And while i have been in a heated debate with t_walgamuth for several pages not once has he got personal and only discussed the topic at hand and never questioned my qualifications or my age or who my family is.

layback40 · #**382** 04-25-2013, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ned2683

You made up a study and when asked to provide proof you refuse to provide. then gave a "The study I mentioned is not freely available. If you were involved in appropriate research at a suitable university you may be able to get access."

what a bunch of BS, so Subaru had a study to prove that their AWD system is the best and yet they want to keep it to themselves. oh no what would happen if the world found out? give me 1 reference from another source that such study exist.

again i am not asking anything more from you than to back up your claim

someone doesn't understand sarcasm? i wasn't really a part of the study, i think the comment right after with the rolling around laughing was obvious? i was making a point that i can make up some study and claim that it cannot be access by the public either.

This sounds more like a child lying to try & save his skin.
One thing that is obvious is that you do not have any first hand knowledge on this. You are ducking & weaving like a child. IIRC you mentioned studies in undergraduate engineering. Yet the way you post lacks the style & content of some one who actually has such knowledge. ~ you use the wrong words too much & rely on quotes from Wiki. It is starting to look like we have another internet expert ~ the closest to engineering is probably playing with a train set.
I stand by my comments & have no need to justify to you. Your hunger for knowledge is probably in keeping with your youth.
I suspect that Subaru had the research done to back up there advertising claims. If you were as smart as you would have us believe, you would realize that the studies were being done about the time most car companies were doing work on ESC systems.
If you had completed a degree in engineering & had worked professionally for some time for large multi nationals you would not be making the BS claim as you would be aware that much of the work done is covered by secrecy. Only unimportant information is released publicly.

ned2683 · #**383** 04-25-2013, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by layback40

This sounds more like a child lying to try & save his skin.
One thing that is obvious is that you do not have any first hand knowledge on this. You are ducking & weaving like a child. IIRC you mentioned studies in undergraduate engineering. Yet the way you post lacks the style & content of some one who actually has such knowledge. ~ you use the wrong words too much & rely on quotes from Wiki. It is starting to look like we have another internet expert ~ the closest to engineering is probably playing with a train set.
I stand by my comments & have no need to justify to you. Your hunger for knowledge is probably in keeping with your youth.
I suspect that Subaru had the research done to back up there advertising claims. If you were as smart as you would have us believe, you would realize that the studies were being done about the time most car companies were doing work on ESC systems.
If you had completed a degree in engineering & had worked professionally for some time for large multi nationals you would not be making the BS claim as you would be aware that much of the work done is covered by secrecy. Only unimportant information is released publicly.

You sir, are a pretty nasty individual. I looked back at your comments on this thread and all you provided were personal attacks and shooting people down claiming they don't know anything while not really contributing to the discussion. I believe you are here to troll and get people worked up. I will probably just ignore you. but if you do find that study please let me know.

I'll admit it that i did joined this discussion because i was a little irritated at your personal attacks towards BC. you were calling him out on his father and his credentials while not really debating him with logic. I typically use this website strictly for car advice and decide to browse since i have a 85 300D i am freshening up this summer.

I always had high respects for members on this board and thought it was professional. but obviously there is a lot of history during the times i was MB less and didn't frequent the site.

And while i have been in a heated debate with t_walgamuth for several pages not once has he got personal and only discussed the topic at hand and never questioned my qualifications or my age or who my family is.

ned2683 · #**384** 04-25-2013, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ned2683

you provided a reference and claimed it was the end all be all study, yet you cannot give details on it?

Actually when i was a part of a research group that did experiments in Germany 5 years ago we had a state of the art technical testing lab. We had access to ice and dirt tracks as well as road courses, the project was funded by the top names in the automotive industries. We found that the affects of AWD was not beneficial to road courses and repeated this results several times with a 99% confidence level. of course this study is not available to the general public and i should ask you to take my word for it because this study was done after your study.

to everyone else - was this not obvious to everyone that it was sarcasm? this dude is getting on my case for lying but i don't know what to say because its suppose to be sarcastic and no one replied or questions the study so i assume everyone got it?

oh darn i was going to ignore him!

t_walgamuth was actually pegging me down a notch but now i feel like this has turned into a personal attack thread now.

layback40 · #**385** 04-25-2013, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ned2683

I'll admit it that i did joined this discussion because i was a little irritated at your personal attacks towards BC. you were calling him out on his father and his credentials while not really debating him with logic. I typically use this website strictly for car advice and decide to browse since i have a 85 300D i am freshening up this summer.

I always had high respects for members on this board and thought it was professional. but obviously there is a lot of history during the times i was MB less and didn't frequent the site.

I have never made any comment about BC's father. I know nothing of BC's family & have no interest in finding out.
BC was asked by another member about his qualifications, I just raised about how BC was responsible for removal of a thread I started about qualifications.
In the time you were absent, your mate BC issued a number of infractions that he should not have that were reversed by the site owner. Eventually your mate BC was removed as a mod by the site owner. Since then he has been accumulating infractions at a steady rate.

It looks like you are to BC what Eric was to Lance !

Despite much of the historical threads about the fall of BC being deleted, I have been told they are still searchable through google. Given your expertise in searches, you are welcome to go look.

t walgamuth · #**386** 04-25-2013, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ned2683

Look, i think we are circling around the same point. obviously there is a penalty given to AWD in those classes i agree with that. i already stated this in my post 258 :

so you are trying to make a point i already made. yeah the awd will benefit since track conditions are not frictionless, what if it rains?, what if its cold.

also if AWD had such advantage, why was there only 1 car ranked in DM and EM at the nationals? obviously wasn't worth the extra weight.

and please please please answer this:
1. do you agree that an AWD car is heavier than a RWF/FWD of the same kind because of the extra differential and drive shafts

2. do you believe a lighter car will out perform/handle a heavier car of the same type?

if you answer no to either one of those you don't know what you are talking about.

If we agree why are you still arguing?

ned2683 · #**387** 04-25-2013, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

If we agree why are you still arguing?

Well because we don't agree on these point:

1. Awd only benefits on less than ideal conditions and only under throttle. This benefit decreases as the surface grip increases.

2. Awd comes with added weight. Added weight robs performance.

In a lot of cases awd cons>pros it provides.

t walgamuth · #**388** 04-25-2013, 11:02 AM

But we do.

Brian Carlton · #**389** 04-25-2013, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by layback40

In the time you were absent, your mate BC issued a number of infractions that he should not have that were reversed by the site owner. Eventually your mate BC was removed as a mod by the site owner. Since then he has been accumulating infractions at a steady rate.

It looks like you are to BC what Eric was to Lance !

Despite much of the historical threads about the fall of BC being deleted, I have been told they are still searchable through google. Given your expertise in searches, you are welcome to go look.

These are factually incorrect statements by Layback. The site owner never reversed a single infraction that was issued by Hattie or myself. Every single claim of "bias" by the moderators at the time was confirmed by the site owner to be unfounded.

History shows that Layback has accumulated sufficient infractions to be banned by the current moderation team for several months.

Layback is also a person to run to the site owner and complain when the moderation doesn't go his way. He recently did so, quite successfully, I might add.

t walgamuth · #**390** 04-25-2013, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

These are factually incorrect statements by Layback. The site owner never reversed a single infraction that was issued by Hattie or myself. Every single claim of "bias" by the moderators at the time was confirmed by the site owner to be unfounded.

History shows that Layback has accumulated sufficient infractions to be banned by the current moderation team for several months.

Layback is also a person to run to the site owner and complain when the moderation doesn't go his way. He recently did so, quite successfully, I might add.

One need look no further than his signature to understand his attitude toward moderation.