"Lateral Performance 450bhp syncro gear kit"
14 January 2004, 08:23 AM
#151
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I await Mark's reply from 32 hours ago, he has emailed to explain the delay and says I should have a reply this morning. I will update the thread with the outcome.
14 January 2004, 10:50 AM
#152
Thankyou John.
I do not like this thread, but there you go.
I would have taken a single well crafted post to lay out the details of the PAR failures, and why you would be foolish to buy one at this time. Having examined some photos from 3 failures, my own conclusion is that the post processing of the the gears suffer from little or no quality control. The heat treatment seems to suffer from extremes of under or over hardening, paticularly on the 3-4 gear module. There could be a whole host of problems in this area, from incorrect temperature or heating time to the wrong process altogether for the alloy used. I have seen too much hardening (brittle snapped tooth failures) and too little (pitting and wear of gear tooth surfaces).
We don't want to buy products that we accept will fail, but are warrantied, not for gearboxes anyway. I don't believe that Mark would have offered the kits for sale if he didn't have faith in his products, it appears that this was misplaced faith. There is only one warranty worth anything, and it's offered by Snap On, end of story.
There appears to be about 4/30 failures in Europe, and at least 2 failures in the US consistent with what we have seen, how many were sold is anyones guess.
Let the facts speak for themselves, and let John settle his grievance with Lateral Performance Ltd in private, so we can see the outcome at the end.
Paul
I do not like this thread, but there you go.
I would have taken a single well crafted post to lay out the details of the PAR failures, and why you would be foolish to buy one at this time. Having examined some photos from 3 failures, my own conclusion is that the post processing of the the gears suffer from little or no quality control. The heat treatment seems to suffer from extremes of under or over hardening, paticularly on the 3-4 gear module. There could be a whole host of problems in this area, from incorrect temperature or heating time to the wrong process altogether for the alloy used. I have seen too much hardening (brittle snapped tooth failures) and too little (pitting and wear of gear tooth surfaces).
We don't want to buy products that we accept will fail, but are warrantied, not for gearboxes anyway. I don't believe that Mark would have offered the kits for sale if he didn't have faith in his products, it appears that this was misplaced faith. There is only one warranty worth anything, and it's offered by Snap On, end of story.
There appears to be about 4/30 failures in Europe, and at least 2 failures in the US consistent with what we have seen, how many were sold is anyones guess.
Let the facts speak for themselves, and let John settle his grievance with Lateral Performance Ltd in private, so we can see the outcome at the end.
Paul
14 January 2004, 12:24 PM
#154
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does Mark work mornings? I think his watch may be on Australian hours, you better give him a chance John.
He doesn't seem in much of a hurry given that his 7 working day deadline before receiving a summons runs out tomorrow and he has had 3 1/2 weeks notice of this deadline to offer a satisfactory solution.
He doesn't seem in much of a hurry given that his 7 working day deadline before receiving a summons runs out tomorrow and he has had 3 1/2 weeks notice of this deadline to offer a satisfactory solution.
14 January 2004, 12:29 PM
#155
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Every time I am promised a time by which I will receive a reply it is broken, no wonder I don't want the kit in Australia without some sort of agreement.
Every time there has been contact with Mark he has had a clear reply usually within an hour. I then wait ages for his responses. Slow thinker? Delaying tactics?
Get your act together Mark, these delaying tactics have gone on long enough unless you really do wish this to go to court in which case you could have said that at the start and saved us all some time.
Every time there has been contact with Mark he has had a clear reply usually within an hour. I then wait ages for his responses. Slow thinker? Delaying tactics?
Get your act together Mark, these delaying tactics have gone on long enough unless you really do wish this to go to court in which case you could have said that at the start and saved us all some time.
14 January 2004, 12:46 PM
#156
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 13,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An observation here, that's all...
Australia is on a different time zone to us.
In my experience, it is not easy to discuss complicated business arrangements with this restriction on windows available for conversation.
I know it isn't rocket science, and that people have been doing just this sort of business for years, but when legal threats are being bandied around as they are here then I would expect certainty regarding what is happening before commenting, and would not make assumptions or interpretations which the next day are found to be wrong.
With this in mind, I do not think that playing out the drama in front of an audience benefits anyone - not the buyer, not the seller, and not the audience as each case is individual. However, John has decided to do this, so it's being done.
I don't want to defend Lateral, or anyone, as people can do that themselves however I do want to make sure that this thread treats everyone fairly, and hope that this conjecture post on my part might make people think rather than just assume the worst.
If this post muddies the waters, I'll edit it, but it is intended to help.
Nick.
Australia is on a different time zone to us.
In my experience, it is not easy to discuss complicated business arrangements with this restriction on windows available for conversation.
I know it isn't rocket science, and that people have been doing just this sort of business for years, but when legal threats are being bandied around as they are here then I would expect certainty regarding what is happening before commenting, and would not make assumptions or interpretations which the next day are found to be wrong.
With this in mind, I do not think that playing out the drama in front of an audience benefits anyone - not the buyer, not the seller, and not the audience as each case is individual. However, John has decided to do this, so it's being done.
I don't want to defend Lateral, or anyone, as people can do that themselves however I do want to make sure that this thread treats everyone fairly, and hope that this conjecture post on my part might make people think rather than just assume the worst.
If this post muddies the waters, I'll edit it, but it is intended to help.
Nick.
14 January 2004, 02:12 PM
#157
Pretty fair and straight forward I would say Nick.
Just so there can be no doubt in anybody's mind, whatsoever, I hope that John and Mark have this resolved satisfactorily later today. A fair resolution without recourse to the Scottish judicial system has been my position from the start. John can confirm that if he wishes. It will avoid a time burden and initial expense for John and it would be the best solution for Mark because the ramifications of taking it to court for him are considerable.
A settlement today is far preferable from a practical point too as the ante is immediately jacked up once John starts the legal action he has threatened.
Just so there can be no doubt in anybody's mind, whatsoever, I hope that John and Mark have this resolved satisfactorily later today. A fair resolution without recourse to the Scottish judicial system has been my position from the start. John can confirm that if he wishes. It will avoid a time burden and initial expense for John and it would be the best solution for Mark because the ramifications of taking it to court for him are considerable.
A settlement today is far preferable from a practical point too as the ante is immediately jacked up once John starts the legal action he has threatened.
14 January 2004, 02:37 PM
#158
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
I think i can understand where both parties are coming from since reading this thread, but do not think it fair that the consumer is putting the vendor under pressure to bow to what is in effect a public flogging.
The vendor has his rights as well to defend his position and take appropriate action instead of what is becoming to look like bullying in to submission.
My thoughts on what i read here, no malice to anyones
I think i can understand where both parties are coming from since reading this thread, but do not think it fair that the consumer is putting the vendor under pressure to bow to what is in effect a public flogging.
The vendor has his rights as well to defend his position and take appropriate action instead of what is becoming to look like bullying in to submission.
My thoughts on what i read here, no malice to anyones
14 January 2004, 10:17 PM
#162
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy,
as you know I am a simple soul! You say my calculation is a load of bollocks...
...I would love to be educated by your greater understanding of these things, as the only facts I have are that the car did 13.45s and 126mph for the 500m and was 13th overall on the day. Indeed, very similar result to yours at TOTBII!
So in my simple mind, a quarter time can be estimated by calculating how long it takes to travel the final 97-odd metres.
Cos in my tiny mind, for the car to have passed the quarter at worse than 11.7s, it must have been travelling at over 126mph to to do the 97m in less time, therefore the quarter mile time would be greater. Or is there something that I do not understand about the time it take to cover 97m. As far as I know, speed equals distance divided by time.
Also you may say that the terminal was rubbish and not 126mph....well if it was slower then the 97m would have taken longer and so the quarter would have been slower than 11.7s - this is perfectly feasible...your best run at TOTBII had a terminal of around 110mph IIRC
So, please, any mathematicians please feel free to contribute and demonstrate how rubbish my calculations are...I look forward to be educated!
Rannoch
PS There are calculators that convert 500m times to 1/4 times and 126/13.45s comes out at 11.4s for the quarter, perhaps a little optimistic
PPS Terminal may be a measure of power, but 60ft times are a major contributor and Marks were certainly not as good as the 1.6s starts you enjoyed this year Andy
PPPS And Marks car was still over 1400kgs at TOTB I, another major factor in 1/4 times
PPPPS Andy - you yourself actually said that torque was a bigger factor in quarters, as with an extra 70bhp your times were the same but your terminals increased significantly!
as you know I am a simple soul! You say my calculation is a load of bollocks...
...I would love to be educated by your greater understanding of these things, as the only facts I have are that the car did 13.45s and 126mph for the 500m and was 13th overall on the day. Indeed, very similar result to yours at TOTBII!
So in my simple mind, a quarter time can be estimated by calculating how long it takes to travel the final 97-odd metres.
Cos in my tiny mind, for the car to have passed the quarter at worse than 11.7s, it must have been travelling at over 126mph to to do the 97m in less time, therefore the quarter mile time would be greater. Or is there something that I do not understand about the time it take to cover 97m. As far as I know, speed equals distance divided by time.
Also you may say that the terminal was rubbish and not 126mph....well if it was slower then the 97m would have taken longer and so the quarter would have been slower than 11.7s - this is perfectly feasible...your best run at TOTBII had a terminal of around 110mph IIRC
So, please, any mathematicians please feel free to contribute and demonstrate how rubbish my calculations are...I look forward to be educated!
Rannoch
PS There are calculators that convert 500m times to 1/4 times and 126/13.45s comes out at 11.4s for the quarter, perhaps a little optimistic
PPS Terminal may be a measure of power, but 60ft times are a major contributor and Marks were certainly not as good as the 1.6s starts you enjoyed this year Andy
PPPS And Marks car was still over 1400kgs at TOTB I, another major factor in 1/4 times
PPPPS Andy - you yourself actually said that torque was a bigger factor in quarters, as with an extra 70bhp your times were the same but your terminals increased significantly!
14 January 2004, 10:57 PM
#163
What a load of bollocks.Trying to prove theoretical what might have beens with a load of calculation. Mark's car ran for about seven weeks or less in 2002 and has not been running since. Why keep going back to something that lasted for six weeks or some similar short period.
There are salesmen about that quote fantastic figures for, clutches,turbos (select your choice), perhaps a little optimistic.
You coming to Well Lane & to show us how dyno figures compare with rolling road results?
What position was Andy at TOTB? I thought he was the top Scooby by rather a long margin
PS There are calculators that convert 500m times to 1/4 times and 126/13.45s comes out at 11.4s for the quarter, perhaps a little optimistic
You coming to Well Lane & to show us how dyno figures compare with rolling road results?
What position was Andy at TOTB? I thought he was the top Scooby by rather a long margin
14 January 2004, 11:29 PM
#164
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those of the "f*ck the driving, it's the numbers that count" brigade - these figures blow both ways.
Your figures are 'proof' are far as you are concerned. They are not proof to others.
Their figures are proof to them. They are not proof to you.
Fair enough.
Wild guesses about terminal speeds are going to be guestimates at best - but I expect they'd be more accurate than the latest 'big event' trap figures which seemed to vary to such a degree from lane to lane that both sides should be considered unquotable (except comparing two cars that ran in the same lane at that event - the figures appeared to be at least a consistent form of rubbish within themselves - which is a start
)
And dyno figures are never going to compare to RR results - one is a specifically measured amount taken under one set of strict (and unrealistic) conditions; the other is an unrealistic interpolated amount measured under a very vague set of conditions. But one is more reproduceable than the other...
It makes far more sense to me for anyone who is getting serious about power measurement comparisons to pop their engine out and put it on a dyno. The numbers may be 'unrealistic in the real world', but I'm pretty sure that the horses are always very nearly the same size as there's very few ways - and no reason - to throw in any errors. That's why they are built, in contrast to RRs which are built for initial set-up tuning (so the actual power is unimportant, it's just nice to have the car have a resistance to work against without having to look where you're going) & Max Power days, for which you may have noticed the most popular RRs seem to be the ones that read highest. Because - guess what? That means the 'lads' can boast more at the pub.
I would have hoped that this would be realised amongst the 'serious tuners' & so simply held as an area of amusement?
So... how many RR "warriors" or whatever you call yourselves are willing to put their engine on a dyno?
I suspect not many. "The numbers wouldn't mean anything" would be the cry. Well, the numbers on a RR don't mean anything to those who have used an engine dyno either
[Edited by nom - 1/14/2004 11:32:47 PM]
- these figures blow both ways.Your figures are 'proof' are far as you are concerned. They are not proof to others.
Their figures are proof to them. They are not proof to you.
Fair enough.
Wild guesses about terminal speeds are going to be guestimates at best - but I expect they'd be more accurate than the latest 'big event' trap figures which seemed to vary to such a degree from lane to lane that both sides should be considered unquotable (except comparing two cars that ran in the same lane at that event - the figures appeared to be at least a consistent form of rubbish within themselves - which is a start
)And dyno figures are never going to compare to RR results - one is a specifically measured amount taken under one set of strict (and unrealistic) conditions; the other is an unrealistic interpolated amount measured under a very vague set of conditions. But one is more reproduceable than the other...
It makes far more sense to me for anyone who is getting serious about power measurement comparisons to pop their engine out and put it on a dyno. The numbers may be 'unrealistic in the real world', but I'm pretty sure that the horses are always very nearly the same size as there's very few ways - and no reason - to throw in any errors. That's why they are built, in contrast to RRs which are built for initial set-up tuning (so the actual power is unimportant, it's just nice to have the car have a resistance to work against without having to look where you're going) & Max Power days, for which you may have noticed the most popular RRs seem to be the ones that read highest. Because - guess what? That means the 'lads' can boast more at the pub.
I would have hoped that this would be realised amongst the 'serious tuners' & so simply held as an area of amusement?
So... how many RR "warriors" or whatever you call yourselves are willing to put their engine on a dyno?
I suspect not many. "The numbers wouldn't mean anything" would be the cry. Well, the numbers on a RR don't mean anything to those who have used an engine dyno either
[Edited by nom - 1/14/2004 11:32:47 PM]
14 January 2004, 11:37 PM
#165
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There are confounding variables on engine dynos as well.
What point is there in tuning a road engine on one either since you only have to revise the map in the car?
Why not just use closed loop boost and knock control and then choose your AFR and map for it?
Bring on the engine dyno mapped and proven monsters and we'll see how they compare to something knocked up in Andy's garage when they run on the black dyno
What point is there in tuning a road engine on one either since you only have to revise the map in the car?
Why not just use closed loop boost and knock control and then choose your AFR and map for it?
Bring on the engine dyno mapped and proven monsters and we'll see how they compare to something knocked up in Andy's garage when they run on the black dyno
15 January 2004, 09:45 AM
#168
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harvey, you appear to be one of these people that boasts about what power he has to his mates.
But at the end of the day, its not what you have got! It's what you do with it that counts!
Dan
But at the end of the day, its not what you have got! It's what you do with it that counts!
Dan
15 January 2004, 09:47 AM
#169
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Class record holder at Pembrey Llandow Goodwood MIRA Hethel Blyton Curborough Lydden and Snetterton
Posts: 8,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<@John>
....and you can't drive over to his at the mo
[Edited by Jay m A - 1/15/2004 9:54:41 AM]
....and you can't drive over to his at the mo
[Edited by Jay m A - 1/15/2004 9:54:41 AM]
15 January 2004, 09:50 AM
#170
John: I posted on here this morning about 04:00 telling you not to bother looking as it was Andy F trying to wind us up.
That post has been disappeared so it was not Andy. Some poor sado with too much time on their hands and the errors are a smoke trail. Either that or they are a bit dool alley.
Anyway what is an annonymous **** head. **** stirrer without the courage to ID themselves.
Anyway just remember things are not always as they seem when persons as yet unidentified can disappear your post.
[Edited by harvey - 1/15/2004 9:59:37 AM]
[Edited by harvey - 1/15/2004 10:07:55 AM]
That post has been disappeared so it was not Andy. Some poor sado with too much time on their hands and the errors are a smoke trail. Either that or they are a bit dool alley.
Anyway what is an annonymous **** head. **** stirrer without the courage to ID themselves.
Anyway just remember things are not always as they seem when persons as yet unidentified can disappear your post.
[Edited by harvey - 1/15/2004 9:59:37 AM]
[Edited by harvey - 1/15/2004 10:07:55 AM]
15 January 2004, 10:24 AM
#171
Sorry Danny.Missed your post. You are spot on mate about what you do with it. Entirely agree with you. At least you got half of it right.
I do not brag about my power to my mates, there is no need but I do answer questions when asked. I am sure they will confirm, if you ask them there is no bragging. Not aware of any power bragging on this thread from me either. Are you? I just state the facts from time to time when it is relevant.
I do post my figures and my spec and share my knowledge but I thought that was what the board was for.
Now you might be the right guy to put me wise 'cause I have wondered about this for a while. What is the difference between Trout posting his incredible dyno figures and a debate about them and Mark posting AdamM's figures when his engine went pop on the dyno etc. but when I make reference to mine it is bragging.
Just wondered?
I do not brag about my power to my mates, there is no need but I do answer questions when asked. I am sure they will confirm, if you ask them there is no bragging. Not aware of any power bragging on this thread from me either. Are you? I just state the facts from time to time when it is relevant.
I do post my figures and my spec and share my knowledge but I thought that was what the board was for.
Now you might be the right guy to put me wise 'cause I have wondered about this for a while. What is the difference between Trout posting his incredible dyno figures and a debate about them and Mark posting AdamM's figures when his engine went pop on the dyno etc. but when I make reference to mine it is bragging.
Just wondered?
15 January 2004, 11:00 AM
#173
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Oooooooop North!
Posts: 2,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not brag about my power to my mates, there is no need but I do answer questions when asked.
No secrets.
Thanks Harvey!
15 January 2004, 11:02 AM
#174
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 13,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The post from "Knob60" is still there as if it were deleted then John's response would look strange. I don't think anyone's deleted a post, and the only people who can delete are either the originator or a moderator. I haven't deleted anything - what was it about Harvey?
Pavlo, I agree to an extent - it has served one of its purposes (John's warranty).
The other issue surrounding the testing is still being debated I think?
Pavlo, I agree to an extent - it has served one of its purposes (John's warranty).
The other issue surrounding the testing is still being debated I think?
15 January 2004, 11:52 AM
#175
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Before packaging up the gear kit today I had the gear tooth inspected by an expert.
He says that in his opinion the surface finish is of poor quality, but more importantly the tooth is over-hardened.
It will be interesting to see what PAR think of it.
He says that in his opinion the surface finish is of poor quality, but more importantly the tooth is over-hardened.
It will be interesting to see what PAR think of it.
15 January 2004, 12:04 PM
#176
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coming back to the testing stuff...
I think the way that 'things' are tested may well be a problem here, at least when compared to the realworld. This is really what my post about engine dynos was for except no-one extrapolated... or at least didn't write it down
Laboratory conditions leave a lot to be desired when it comes to 'real world', but I suspect this is the way these things are tested because it is the only way it can accurately be measured.
Take a 200m water resistant watch. Under testing, it's put in a box and the pressure is raised very slowly over a couple of days to 200m water pressure. It survived. There we go, a nice certificate. But go diving with it at 30m & tap a rock & it'll implode (I know - I've dont it). But it had the certificate because it could survive to that depth. I just wasn't 'doing it right'...
Don't you think they do the same things with clutches & gearboxes to quote their numbers? A 400lbft clutch may take that happily over extended periods of time, as long as the torque was built up carefully & held accurately (i.e. stresses are minimised throughout the procedure). But what sort of 'real world' experience is that? Hmm...
But the manufacturers can claim that figure because it's correct. So it's the figure that they advertise it at (and their suppliers would also be expected to advertise it at).
It's correct, it's just not very useful.
I would hope that people would take this sort of thing into account when speccing things that are highly stressed parts like this - the amount quoted by the manufacturer is always going to be under the best conditions possible to get the best numbers from the part.
I don't know what the 'safety' margin is with your average mechanical engineering project, but with civil engineering, 40% is considered to be a sensible safety margin for each component under these sort of conditions. I suspect it is rather smaller with mechanics or we'd all be driving things the size of buses
I think the way that 'things' are tested may well be a problem here, at least when compared to the realworld. This is really what my post about engine dynos was for except no-one extrapolated... or at least didn't write it down
Laboratory conditions leave a lot to be desired when it comes to 'real world', but I suspect this is the way these things are tested because it is the only way it can accurately be measured.
Take a 200m water resistant watch. Under testing, it's put in a box and the pressure is raised very slowly over a couple of days to 200m water pressure. It survived. There we go, a nice certificate. But go diving with it at 30m & tap a rock & it'll implode (I know - I've dont it
). But it had the certificate because it could survive to that depth. I just wasn't 'doing it right'...Don't you think they do the same things with clutches & gearboxes to quote their numbers? A 400lbft clutch may take that happily over extended periods of time, as long as the torque was built up carefully & held accurately (i.e. stresses are minimised throughout the procedure). But what sort of 'real world' experience is that? Hmm...
But the manufacturers can claim that figure because it's correct. So it's the figure that they advertise it at (and their suppliers would also be expected to advertise it at).
It's correct, it's just not very useful.
I would hope that people would take this sort of thing into account when speccing things that are highly stressed parts like this - the amount quoted by the manufacturer is always going to be under the best conditions possible to get the best numbers from the part.
I don't know what the 'safety' margin is with your average mechanical engineering project, but with civil engineering, 40% is considered to be a sensible safety margin for each component under these sort of conditions. I suspect it is rather smaller with mechanics or we'd all be driving things the size of buses
15 January 2004, 12:10 PM
#177
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
Please can you qualify the experts opinion, with what tests were carried out to make these conclusions ?
Did he perform a "Rockwell" hardness test, and if so, what was the result.
I'm more interested than anyone to find the cause of the failure, but I can't turn round to PAR, and say an expert said it was over-hardened, based on a visual inspection !
Mark.
Please can you qualify the experts opinion, with what tests were carried out to make these conclusions ?
Did he perform a "Rockwell" hardness test, and if so, what was the result.
I'm more interested than anyone to find the cause of the failure, but I can't turn round to PAR, and say an expert said it was over-hardened, based on a visual inspection !
Mark.
15 January 2004, 12:12 PM
#178
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John and Mark, am happy to see this resolved.
harvey,
since you said this
"What a load of bollocks.Trying to prove theoretical what might have beens with a load of calculation."
Can you explain how your car managed to get 585bhp when only the power at the wheels was measured. Surely you are trying to prove theretically what might be the flywheel power with a load of calculation?
I would love to compare to see the power at the wheels figures for all your runs.
Have they been posted anywhere?
harvey,
since you said this
"What a load of bollocks.Trying to prove theoretical what might have beens with a load of calculation."
Can you explain how your car managed to get 585bhp when only the power at the wheels was measured. Surely you are trying to prove theretically what might be the flywheel power with a load of calculation?
I would love to compare to see the power at the wheels figures for all your runs.
Have they been posted anywhere?
15 January 2004, 12:23 PM
#179
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The opinion was based on a visual inspection only. He was happy to be quoted on this and was happy to state what I put above based solely on visual inspection.
15 January 2004, 12:35 PM
#180
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 13,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having re-read the thread, I do think all points raised on the original thread has been answered and we're moving away from the original point.
Lateral have clarified how the testing was done.
John has got his warranty issue sorted.
As the original purpose has been served fully, I am taking the decision to lock this before it goes off-topic.
Regards,
Nick.
Lateral have clarified how the testing was done.
John has got his warranty issue sorted.
As the original purpose has been served fully, I am taking the decision to lock this before it goes off-topic.
Regards,
Nick.
