"Ricing" With Motorcycles?

[Famine]

Yeah, but eventually you get a bacon sandwich.

 

[Scaff]

I'll skip everything, including the proof, and ask what vehicles you, the guy sitting next to you, and Scaff have tested with what cone filters, aftermarket intakes, and exhaust setups, and what the results have been. But I'll venture a guess - they don't run tests on 94 Civic Ex's (or any other model cars) to see what power is lost or gained off of installing an aftermarket cone filter intake, do they?

Well for me that would be six years working with Renault UK, including four years that involved developing technical training working directly with the staff at the Technocentre just outside Paris.

Add in a lifetime working with cars and a solid background in the actual technical side of what occurs (including a while training it within the automotive industry).

So yes I have spent time in this area, quite a bit of it actually. That most certainly does also include looking at the effect differing modifications have on cars. Hell we used to re-map the ECU on every one of our company cars.

Now as you seem to be happy to ignore that facts that have been presented to you, how about you divulge exactly what you're background is. I love to know exactly who is telling me that I don't know my job.


Scaff

 

[TrievelA7X]

As I said, you're completely unwilling to learn.

Go to your dad and tell him it's impossible to lose out by fitting a new intake and exhaust to any car. When he tells you you're wrong, just tell him he's an angry old man and thinking too "old school" - and should stop assuming that everything he reads is true. Or listen to him.

Try it with "wider tyres always generate more grip" and "holes in brake discs make your brakes better".

Quote me stating any of those things, and I'll shoot myself - I promise.

Quote me saying it's "Impossible" to lose power from any modification - Quote me saying anything about holes in discs making brakes better - Quote me saying wider tires always generate more grip.

Didn't think so. And you have the nerve to act upset when you feel I misrepresent what you say? I've specifically stated none of these, while also stating these are all possible.

One thing though - Are you telling me cross-drilled rotors (holes in discs) do not increase brake cooling, thus reducing brake fade? Or are you actually under the impression I said cross drilled rotors will improve stopping distances?

Good luck on those quotes.

EDIT: Maybe you've forgotten, but he did drag race, competitively, and his wider tires did produce more grip, shockingly

Well for me that would be six years working with Renault UK, including four years that involved developing technical training working directly with the staff at the Technocentre just outside Paris.

Add in a lifetime working with cars and a solid background in the actual technical side of what occurs (including a while training it within the automotive industry).

So yes I have spent time in this area, quite a bit of it actually. That most certainly does also include looking at the effect differing modifications have on cars. Hell we used to re-map the ECU on every one of our company cars.

Now as you seem to be happy to ignore that facts that have been presented to you, how about you divulge exactly what you're background is. I love to know exactly who is telling me that I don't know my job.


Scaff

First thing first, fancy job title, doesn't tell me squat about what you do though.

developing technical training working

I don't know Renault's definition of this - but it doesn't sound like testing cone filters.

Add in a lifetime working with cars

I have this.

a solid background in the actual technical side of what occurs (including a while training it within the automotive industry

It sounds helpful in explaining why things happen, but not helpful in what happened.

But -
That's of similar design to the intake I had.
It shaved .1-.2 off the 1/4.
And removing the intake tube to place the filter directly on the throttle body shaved another .1
And this is the exact kind of intake setup you are claiming must lose power.

My "background", would be the past 13 years reading about, reviewing, working on, and testing different things with different cars.
I've helped select and install numerous modifications to numerous cars, only one of which was my own, aside from general repairs.
And aside from reading everything technical that I can find, I also have a well-above par understanding of physics, and in physics, as I'm sure you know, there is always a sweet spot.
The problem with generalizing these physics with cars, is that it flat out does not work. Just because my 3.8 V6 gains 8 HP from something, doesn't mean a Chrysler 3.8 V6 will also gain 8 HP from it. And likewise, just because one 1994 Civic DX lost 1 HP from a cone filter sucking air from the engine bay, does not mean a another car will lose 1 HP from the same setup.

And sadly, I think you already know this, but for some reason feel intent to "prove" - something, I just don't know what.

the fact is, there are very few cars on the road that will not gain grip from wider tires, and very few will "throw their suspensions out of whack" by fitting lower profile tires, so long as it's not excessive.
Manufactures consider things like ride quality when selecting wheels and tires for their vehicles, and tire longevity, fuel mileage, etc.
They also consider things like fuel economy, emissions, and sound when developing intake and exhaust setups in their cars also.
Because while 12% of consumers may like the deep sucking sound that comes from most aftermarket intakes, and the roar of 2.5in mandrel bent cat-back exhaust with a high-flow cat, and resonator removed, they'd rather please the other 88% of their customers rather than add 12 HP, that the 88% alos don't care about.

True story - My Buick had a resonator. It wore out, I replaced it with straight pipe, and it's at best, absolute best, 3db louder. I'd guess 1db though.
So why did Buick install resonators? Because Buick buyers want their cars quiet. (Or at least that's what they perceived)
And it had nothing to do with engineering, other than the knowledge that resonators make cars quieter.
They also had optional 225/60/16 tires/wheel packages available, why? Because the lower profile would screw up the handling? Reduce grip? increase rolling resistance? hinder aerodynamics? Nope. While some of these are "technically" true, overall, they improve vehicle performance. Actually, the increased rolling resistance that may or may not exist here, isn't enough to change MPG ratings.
And I say may or may not exist, because stiffer sidewalls can mean less rolling resistance.

 

[Famine]

Quote me stating any of those things, and I'll shoot myself - I promise.

Quote me saying it's "Impossible" to lose power from any modification - Quote me saying anything about holes in discs making brakes better - Quote me saying wider tires always generate more grip.

Didn't think so. And you have the nerve to act upset when you feel I misrepresent what you say? I've specifically stated none of these, while also stating these are all possible.

Then with what are you arguing?

I pointed out that wider tyres, bigger exhausts and air filters do not necessarily always increase performance - that it's a very fine balancing act that is incredibly easy to get wrong - but that the rice/Barry community thinks the opposite. Wider tyres can reduce available grip and exhausts and air filters can reduce available power (or rather, since I like technical, torque), if you're not very, very careful - but they think wider tyres always mean more grip, and bigger exhausts and different air filters always mean power gain. You've been railing against this with "no evidence" and "but Buick" and "on a Civic EX" and, apparently, quite markedly missing the point. Again.

One thing though - Are you telling me cross-drilled rotors (holes in discs) do not increase brake cooling, thus reducing brake fade? Or are you actually under the impression I said cross drilled rotors will improve stopping distances?

Nope. I said that car manufacturers fit wider tyres to sports models for the exact same reason Porsche fit drilled disks. You dodged the issue by saying you know how brakes work. I'm not "telling" you anything - primarily because you simply refuse to be told anything.

The problem with generalizing these physics with cars, is that it flat out does not work. Just because my 3.8 V6 gains 8 HP from something, doesn't mean a Chrysler 3.8 V6 will also gain 8 HP from it. And likewise, just because one 1994 Civic DX lost 1 HP from a cone filter sucking air from the engine bay, does not mean a another car will lose 1 HP from the same setup.

There's only one generalisation at play here - modding without care can be detrimental (and thus rice/Barry). We're saying the same thing as your last two sentences - what works for one car doesn't necessarily mean it works for them all. The rice/Barry community thinks differently.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Then with what are you arguing?

I pointed out that wider tyres, bigger exhausts and air filters do not necessarily always increase performance - that it's a very fine balancing act that is incredibly easy to get wrong - but that the rice/Barry community thinks the opposite. Wider tyres can reduce available grip and exhausts and air filters can reduce available power (or rather, since I like technical, torque), if you're not very, very careful - but they think wider tyres always mean more grip, and bigger exhausts and different air filters always mean power gain. You've been railing against this with "no evidence" and "but Buick" and "on a Civic EX" and, apparently, quite markedly missing the point. Again.

Since the reply was to me asking for you to quote me saying what you thought I said or meant, shouldn't I be asking you what you've been arguing?

All I did was ask if a specific tire/wheel combo on a specific car would be rice or not. You said probably, and I told you why it wouldn't, at which point, you took it to mean I believe every car in the world should have giant wheels and tires, despite my specific line of

Now that doesn't mean 225/40/18 would be even better, as there is a limit.

Nope. I said that car manufacturers fit wider tyres to sports models for the exact same reason Porsche fit drilled disks. You dodged the issue by saying you know how brakes work. I'm not "telling" you anything - primarily because you simply refuse to be told anything.

So you're saying that wider tires reduce brake rotor temperature? Or are you saying cross-frilled rotors have no benefit?

If you're saying the latter, then you must mean that the wide tires on Vipers and Corvettes are of no performance gain, correct?

There's only one generalisation at play here - modding without care can be detrimental (and thus rice/Barry). We're saying the same thing as your last two sentences - what works for one car doesn't necessarily mean it works for them all. The rice/Barry community thinks differently.

But this means modified improperly is a definition of rice.
When I listed the definition of rice, you just said, "No, it's all-show-no-go" and that "Anything that doesn't improve performance is rice".
But let me tell you, long before the term "rice" was coined, and was used for anything, people were putting show parts on vehicles without being labeled anything, and there was no insulting name they were called.
It was the excessive modification of the exterior, improper modification of performance parts and show parts alike, and the general lack of know-how that eventually coined the term "ricer" for the kids that knew nothing of what they were doing to their entry level 90's Japanese cars.

And that's what I'm trying to tell you is the meaning behind the original term - Dumb kids that had no idea what they were doing but believed with 18 inch wheels, 30 series tires, a cold-air and cat-back their 110HP car was now a certifiable race car.
And you actually have them to thank for the higher quality replacement parts fitted on your current vehicle. Because without these stupid kids, most cars wouldn't have squat available besides 100% factory replacement parts.

 

[Famine]

All I did was ask if a specific tire/wheel combo on a specific car would be rice or not. You said probably, and I told you why it wouldn't, at which point, you took it to mean I believe every car in the world should have giant wheels and tires

No and no. You've decided that's what I took it to mean, believe it and are now expressing it as fact.

I said that if a car is designed to take advantage of it, it can offer a performance gain. However if the car is not it can generate a performance detriment in several areas.

So you're saying that wider tires reduce brake rotor temperature? Or are you saying cross-frilled rotors have no benefit?

Quick tip - if you have to say "so you're saying that" and reword it, you've missed the point.

If you're saying the latter, then you must mean that the wide tires on Vipers and Corvettes are of no performance gain, correct?

Quick tip - if you have to say "you must mean that" and reword it, you've missed the pont.

Wider tyres offer no performance advantage to, and jot this one down and run it by your dad, cars which cannot take advantage of them. If the car cannot take advantage of them they can not only not offer a performance advantage but cause a performance detriment.

Car manufacturers put wider tyres on sports models for the same reason Porsche put drilled brakes on their cars. This is both what I'm saying and what I mean, no rewording necessary.

But this means modified improperly is a definition of rice.

Would "modified improperly" be a subset of "offers no performance advantage"? Why I do declare!

When I listed the definition of rice, you just said, "No, it's all-show-no-go" and that "Anything that doesn't improve performance is rice".
But let me tell you, long before the term "rice" was coined, and was used for anything, people were putting show parts on vehicles without being labeled anything, and there was no insulting name they were called.
It was the excessive modification of the exterior, improper modification of performance parts and show parts alike, and the general lack of know-how that eventually coined the term "ricer" for the kids that knew nothing of what they were doing to their entry level 90's Japanese cars.

And that's what I'm trying to tell you is the meaning behind the original term - Dumb kids that had no idea what they were doing but believed with 18 inch wheels, 30 series tires, a cold-air and cat-back their 110HP car was now a certifiable race car.

Actually, there's considerable disagreement about the original definition of "rice". Some say it was a motorbiking term - rice rocket being any fast, Far-Eastern motorbike. Some say it was actually used to define heavily modified American cars - rice burner being a car that could fend off the challenge of the upstarts from the East.

The origin of "Barry", however, with which "rice" has become synonymous (see the French "Jacky") is, as I said, any car (or part thereof, or even the owner) which has been modified in such a manner that confers no advantage to any area of vehicle performance.

And you actually have them to thank for the higher quality replacement parts fitted on your current vehicle. Because without these stupid kids, most cars wouldn't have squat available besides 100% factory replacement parts.

I shall pass on this good news to all our friends in the ProET pits.

 

[TrievelA7X]

No and no. You've decided that's what I took it to mean, believe it and are now expressing it as fact.

I said that if a car is designed to take advantage of it, it can offer a performance gain. However if the car is not it can generate a performance detriment in several areas.

Then what did you think I meant.
here's a tip - Instead of protecting yourself at all times, and making these discussions take forever , take a stance, and grow a set, will ya?
Don't just say "that's not what I thought".
Say what the hell you thought, and quit beating around the bush.
All your posts and you still (according to you) have hardly said anything, or thought anything, because you won't say.

Quick tip - if you have to say "so you're saying that" and reword it, you've missed the point.

No, you didn't make one.

Wider tyres offer no performance advantage to, and jot this one down and run it by your dad, cars which cannot take advantage of them. If the car cannot take advantage of them they can not only not offer a performance advantage but cause a performance detriment.

You're clever.

Car manufacturers put wider tyres on sports models for the same reason Porsche put drilled brakes on their cars. This is both what I'm saying and what I mean, no rewording necessary.

Without the "why" it's meaningless.
Shocker, another post from Famine without actual meaning.
Birds fly for the same reason planes fly. And yet there's still no substance in that type of statement. Just pointing out the obvious.

Would "modified improperly" be a subset of "offers no performance advantage"? Why I do declare!

No. One can modify improperly and still gain performance.

Actually, there's considerable disagreement about the original definition of "rice". Some say it was a motorbiking term - rice rocket being any fast, Far-Eastern motorbike. Some say it was actually used to define heavily modified American cars - rice burner being a car that could fend off the challenge of the upstarts from the East.

Guess what? It's neither of those.
Rice burner stems from cars made in Asia, "rice burner" is a pun, insinuating since the people eat rice, the cars do also.

But you'll use your own definition regardless, especially since you dug up some falsehoods.
just because a few people may have used the term this way - Doesn't change what how and why the phrase actually became popular.
I won't argue bikers may have used the term - But it's not what sent the phrase rolling across the world. And neither is whoever you may have found that thought it meant American cars that can burn cars made in riceland, or whatever misconception may have taken place in that bad interpretation.

The origin of "Barry", however, with which "rice" has become synonymous (see the French "Jacky") is, as I said, any car (or part thereof, or even the owner) which has been modified in such a manner that confers no advantage to any area of vehicle performance.

I already told you that you interpreted "rice" to mean barry, in which you were mistaken, and believe they are synonymous.
Barry - is a term I know nothing of, but as I suspected, it originated aside, keyword - separately - from "ricer".
Somewhere down the line someone interpreted falsely that they meant the same thing - which by your definition of "barry" they do not.
They have very similar meanings, but are certainly not the same thing.

Because

any car (or part thereof, or even the owner) which has been modified in such a manner that confers no advantage to any area of vehicle performance.

Is not the definition of "ricer". That would make any car with just window tint a ricer, which it certainly is not. In order to be a ricer, it must be excessive.
If not distasteful, posing as a higher model, improper, etc.

I shall pass on this good news to all our friends in the ProET pits.

They don't drive Miatas, barring one or two. But let me know how the ProET parts you have installed work on your car.
Cars like Miatas didn't rarely see customization before ricers, and because of the large crowd of ricers, and their wallets, you can go search through 5 intakes, 400 wheels, 8 exhaust options, and even find whatever (still unspecified) replacement parts you have are.
Sorry, "higher friction pads" and "stainless exhaust" (that adds power but for unspecified reasons, such as size, or mandrel bends) and "rotors that dissipate heat better" (without being called either slotted, cross-drilled, or "magical") are words spoken only by guys who don't really know what they're talking about in America.
So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's a cultural language difference. (And I don't mean that sarcastically.)

 

[Scaff]

First thing first, fancy job title, doesn't tell me squat about what you do though.

Rather strange! I didn't tell you my job title, but I did tell you what I do/have done.

The only thing I can conclude is that you either didn't read what I posted or you ignored it, both of which make you're reply rather redundent.

To re-itterate I HAVE WORK IN TECHNICAL TRAINING IN THE MOTOR INDUSTRY FOR OVER A DECADE.

I don't know Renault's definition of this - but it doesn't sound like testing cone filters.

So technical training doesn't involve looking at how the entire internal conbustion engine works, nor does it involve looking at how these changes affect the power it produces?

In your mind it may not, but I can assure you that out here in the real world it most certainly does.

For the record I worked with Renaultsport and TWR on the development (and subsiquent training) for the Clio V6. Which involved transfering an engine only used to that point in a FWD 5 door family car into the MR Clio V6.

A process that involved a complete redesign of the entire intake and exhaust system. Many, many variations of which were looked at and tried.

It sounds helpful in explaining why things happen, but not helpful in what happened.

But - http://www.modifiedcars.com/cars/13267/modified-pontiac-grand-am-2000-pictures/3684
That's of similar design to the intake I had.
It shaved .1-.2 off the 1/4.
And removing the intake tube to place the filter directly on the throttle body shaved another .1
And this is the exact kind of intake setup you are claiming must lose power.

To use your new favorite line, quote me saying this.

I have never claimed that it MUST lose power, both Famine and I have said you cann't assume you will gain power and in some cases may lose power or it may make no diffrence at all.

My "background", would be the past 13 years reading about, reviewing, working on, and testing different things with different cars.
I've helped select and install numerous modifications to numerous cars, only one of which was my own, aside from general repairs.
And aside from reading everything technical that I can find, I also have a well-above par understanding of physics, and in physics, as I'm sure you know, there is always a sweet spot.
The problem with generalizing these physics with cars, is that it flat out does not work. Just because my 3.8 V6 gains 8 HP from something, doesn't mean a Chrysler 3.8 V6 will also gain 8 HP from it. And likewise, just because one 1994 Cinvic DX lost 1 HP from a cone filter sucking air from the engine bay, does not mean a another car will lose 1 HP from the same setup.

And sadly, I think you already know this, but for some reason feel intent to "prove" - something, I just don't know what.

the fact is, there are very few cars on the road that will not gain grip from wider tires, and very few will "throw their suspensions out of whack" by fitting lower profile tires, so long as it's not excessive.
Manufactures consider things like ride quality when selecting wheels and tires for their vehicles, and tire longevity, fuel mileage, etc.
They also consider things like fuel economy, emissions, and sound when developing intake and exhaust setups in their cars also.
Because while 12% of consumers may like the deep sucking sound that comes from most aftermarket intakes, and the roar of 2.5in mandrel bent cat-back exhaust with a high-flow cat, and resonator removed, they'd rather please the other 88% of their customers rather than add 12 HP, that the 88% alos don't care about.

True story - My Buick had a resonator. It wore out, I replaced it with straight pipe, and it's at best, absolute best, 3db louder. I'd guess 1db though.
So why did Buick install resonators? Because Buick buyers want their cars quiet. (Or at least that's what they perceived)
And it had nothing to do with engineering, other than the knowledge that resonators make cars quieter.
They also had optional 225/60/16 tires/wheel packages available, why? Because the lower profile would screw up the handling? Reduce grip? increase rolling resistance? hinder aerodynamics? Nope. While some of these are "technically" true, overall, they improve vehicle performance. Actually, the increased rolling resistance that may or may not exist here, isn't enough to change MPG ratings.
And I say may or may not exist, because stiffer sidewalls can mean less rolling resistance.

The only person here who has generalised anything here has been you.

That you can't generalise things is exactly what Famine and I have stated the entire time.

Oh and for the record I have a more that good understanding of the physics involved, given that Vehicle Dynamics is a subject I have also tuaght within the industry.


Scaff

 

[Famine]

Then what did you think I meant.

Since I'm not psychic, I go with the words on the screen. If you mean something different, type something different.

here's a tip - Instead of protecting yourself at all times, and making these discussions take forever , take a stance, and grow a set, will ya?
Don't just say "that's not what I thought".
Say what the hell you thought, and quit beating around the bush.
All your posts and you still (according to you) have hardly said anything, or thought anything, because you won't say.

Yay! Aggression couple with ignorance.

As above, I say exactly what I mean. That you interpret it differently is your problem and not mine.

No, you didn't make one.

That you believe this is a pretty clear indicator you aren't blessed with "a well-above par understanding of physics", at least insofar as this field is concerned. But then I'd expect nothing less from your bullish inability to learn. The point is pretty clear.

Without the "why" it's meaningless.

Nope.

Shocker, another post from Famine without actual meaning.

The fault isn't with the lack of meaning - it's right there - but with your inability to understand it.

Birds fly for the same reason planes fly. And yet there's still no substance in that type of statement. Just pointing out the obvious.

I'd point out the obvious that someone with "a well-above par understanding of physics" wouldn't draw that comparison, since it is incorrect. But I suspect I'd just be wasting my time.

No. One can modify improperly and still gain performance.

Interesting. Elaborate.

Guess what? It's neither of those.
Rice burner stems from cars made in Asia, "rice burner" is a pun, insinuating since the people eat rice, the cars do also.

But you'll use your own definition regardless, especially since you dug up some falsehoods.
just because a few people may have used the term this way - Doesn't change what how and why the phrase actually became popular.
I won't argue bikers may have used the term - But it's not what sent the phrase rolling across the world. And neither is whoever you may have found that thought it meant American cars that can burn cars made in riceland, or whatever misconception may have taken place in that bad interpretation.

Guess what? No-one can agree - which is why I brought all the interpretations. As for using one's own definition regardless... you have brought one interpretation and decided it's the right one. Go you.

Incidentally, the term is slightly older than "90s".

I already told you that you interpreted "rice" to mean barry, in which you were mistaken, and believe they are synonymous.
Barry - is a term I know nothing of, but as I suspected, it originated aside, keyword - separately - from "ricer".
Somewhere down the line someone interpreted falsely that they meant the same thing - which by your definition of "barry" they do not.
They have very similar meanings, but are certainly not the same thing.

So you're plotting the etymology of a word you don't know anything about and comparing it to the etymology you've decided is correct of another word and deciding they are not synonyms?

Wow. Just... wow.

Because Is not the definition of "ricer". That would make any car with just window tint a ricer, which it certainly is not.

A window tint could be a rice/Barry mod. It reduces the amount of light entering the cabin, making the window which is tinted harder to see through - much more so at night.

Or it could be a non-rice/Barry mod. If you're driving a refridgerated van and the rear windows aren't actually used to see through.

They don't drive Miatas, barring one or two.

Neither do I. Rendering every single one of your following assumptions quite hilariously wrong.

Sorry, "higher friction pads" and "stainless exhaust" (that adds power but for unspecified reasons, such as size, or mandrel bends) and "rotors that dissipate heat better" (without being called either slotted, cross-drilled, or "magical") are words spoken only by guys who don't really know what they're talking about in America.

I tailor my words to my audience. You haven't got a clue, so that's what you get.


You just... don't get it. Anything. Every post you make on this site is an argument why what you believe is right and is issued in the face of all technical knowledge to the contrary from people who are expert in the field. And then you get abusive and insulting and blame everyone but yourself and your own lack of knowledge in the field (any field) for the argument that takes place.

This is, simply, the behaviour of a troll and until you accept that there are people who know more about things, you will never, ever learn any better. I would have been more than happy for an expert like Scaff to come into this thread and tell me that I'm wrong - and where I went wrong in the process...

 

[Small_Fryz]

Where is the Riced motorbikes?

 

[wfooshee]

One thing though - Are you telling me cross-drilled rotors (holes in discs) do not increase brake cooling, thus reducing brake fade? Or are you actually under the impression I said cross drilled rotors will improve stopping distances?

Actually, the things you're saying "Hey, I never said that!" are things you should be saying.

Rotors are not cross-drilled or slotted for cooling. They are vented (radial tubes through the body of the rotor) for cooling. Slots and holes release gas buildup under the pads, keeping the pads in better contact with the rotor, which does help with both pedal feel and stopping distances. Notice that race cars with carbon/carbon brakes are not drilled or slotted, but they most definitely are vented. The carbon pad material doesn't generate gas pressure which tries to lift the pad off the rotor, so drilling is not required.

The only rotors that dissipate heat better are bigger ones, or vented replacing solid.

True story - My Buick had a resonator. It wore out, I replaced it with straight pipe, and it's at best, absolute best, 3db louder. I'd guess 1db though.
So why did Buick install resonators? Because Buick buyers want their cars quiet. (Or at least that's what they perceived)
And it had nothing to do with engineering, other than the knowledge that resonators make cars quieter.

You may be confusing "resonator" with "muffler" here. A resonator is called such because it either adds a burble to the exhaust note, or gives a standing wave a place to release its resonance. One adds noise, one quiets noise, but both at a specific frequency.

As for 1db quieter, the human ear is not capable of detecting a 1db difference, even in side-by-side comparisons, much less after the time taken changing something out. If you're listening to music and have someone adjust the volume knob, it will change by at least about 3db before you detect the change.

And if you think making a car quiet has nothing to do with engineering, then your case is, as Famine states, pretty hopeless.

 

[Gil]

May I just say: "Bacon Sandwich."
LMBAO!

 

[TrievelA7X]

Rather strange! I didn't tell you my job title, but I did tell you what I do/have done.

The only thing I can conclude is that you either didn't read what I posted or you ignored it, both of which make you're reply rather redundent.

To re-itterate I HAVE WORK IN TECHNICAL TRAINING IN THE MOTOR INDUSTRY FOR OVER A DECADE.

Worked in technical training. Hmmm.
So you work through MIT at an R&D to certify inspection mechanics?
You are certified in technical repair for vehicles?
You teach technical repair?
You assist in training for technical repair?
Who, what, where, why, when, or how, would be the key factors.

I have worked in training in the warehousing industry.
Did I teach? What did I teach? Who did I teach? (as in what job were they learning to do?) Where did I teach it? (as in hands on, in the field, on the job, in a classroom)
See how all these questions pile up?

So technical training doesn't involve looking at how the entire internal conbustion engine works, nor does it involve looking at how these changes affect the power it produces?

Depends on what type of technical training. Emissions inspection training? Engine development training?

In your mind it may not, but I can assure you that out here in the real world it most certainly does.

I can't tell you. All you said is "worked in" "technical training".
Neither the how, or the what necessary have you included.

For the record I worked with Renaultsport and TWR on the development (and subsiquent training) for the Clio V6. Which involved transfering an engine only used to that point in a FWD 5 door family car into the MR Clio V6.

Worked with how? I know warehouse workers that transferred an LS1 into a pickup so small it required the firewall to be moved.
And it worked.
Now I'm not busting on your job with this, just saying, again, specifics are great.
When I was a kid I handed my dad tools. I could say I "worked" on lawnmowers at the age of 7. Specifics are great.

A process that involved a complete redesign of the entire intake and exhaust system. Many, many variations of which were looked at and tried.

And what factors were involved? Sound? Power? Fuel economy? powerband? space? Cost?
I'd still bet they never tried a cone filter directly on the throttle body, Until you say otherwise.

To use your new favorite line, quote me saying this.

I have never claimed that it MUST lose power, both Famine and I have said you cann't assume you will gain power and in some cases may lose power or it may make no diffrence at all.

Maybe I jumped on the band wagon. It's easy to do, especially when everything you say is taken as "always" and "forever" and "100%" Despite saying the exact opposite.

The only person here who has generalised anything here has been you.

Really?

That you can't generalise things is exactly what Famine and I have stated the entire time.

Well, that would depend on what. Can I generalize K&N filters will flow better than STP? Sure. Can I generalize a stock sized but higher flow muffler will gain power? Sure. Can I generalize that using 60 series tires instead of 70 series will always improve cornering grip on a family sedan? Sure.
It's not rocket science.
It only gets difficult to not go overboard when you start really plowing away, choosing the right sized headers, throttle body, or whether 50 series or 45 series.
But "generalized" basic improvements can easily be made. - Check out Famines "modification" list. He generalized everything in it. "higher friction" "stickier", etc.

Oh and for the record I have a more that good understanding of the physics involved, given that Vehicle Dynamics is a subject I have also tuaght within the industry.

That's good. To whom and what did you teach?
I know, I know, you taught "vehicle dynamics". What vehicle dynamics. Aerodynamics? Combustion chamber dynamics? Or any and every vehicle dynamic there is?

Since I'm not psychic, I go with the words on the screen. If you mean something different, type something different.

Car manufacturers put wider tyres on sports models for the same reason Porsche put drilled brakes on their cars. This is both what I'm saying and what I mean, no rewording necessary.

Ok then it's settled.
Wider tires are installed because they reduce brake component temperatures.
Because that is why Porsche uses drilled brakes to reduce brake temperatures.

Your words, not mine.

Yay! Aggression couple with ignorance.

As above, I say exactly what I mean. That you interpret it differently is your problem and not mine.

But your statements are always missing something, whether it's the who, what, where, why, or how. If not all of them.

That you believe this is a pretty clear indicator you aren't blessed with "a well-above par understanding of physics", at least insofar as this field is concerned. But then I'd expect nothing less from your bullish inability to learn. The point is pretty clear.

This is your response to "you didn't make one".

The fault isn't with the lack of meaning - it's right there - but with your inability to understand it.

Car manufacturers put wider tyres on sports models for the same reason Porsche put drilled brakes on their cars. This is both what I'm saying and what I mean, no rewording necessary.

You denied it's meaning.
The technical reason Porsche puts them on, is to reduce brake temperatures.
You are technical, you say so yourself.

However - there is more than one reason they put them on.
therefore -

Without the "why" it's meaningless.

Because unless you specify which reason you're referring to, one is left to guess. I chose the technical reason, since it came from a technical person.
Ain't specifics great?

I'd point out the obvious that someone with "a well-above par understanding of physics" wouldn't draw that comparison, since it is incorrect. But I suspect I'd just be wasting my time.

I'm impressed you didn't sidetrack us into another sidebar about why birds and planes fly.
However, it's not wrong.
Birds and planes fly because there is enough lifting wind force generated by their wings to lift them off the ground.
Wait - Don't tell me there is more than one way that could be taken!
Does this mean the specific reason being used for "why" is necessary after all?

You see, if the reason you were referring to was that it helps performance, then yes, Super wide tires are installed for the same reason drilled rotors are. But if you meant because they cool the brakes, then you were wrong. And yes, there's more provability's!
Ain't specifics great?

Guess what? No-one can agree - which is why I brought all the interpretations. As for using one's own definition regardless... you have brought one interpretation and decided it's the right one. Go you.

Incidentally, the term is slightly older than "90s".

It was used before the 90's. It became massively popular in the 90's.

So you're plotting the etymology of a word you don't know anything about and comparing it to the etymology you've decided is correct of another word and deciding they are not synonyms?

Wow. Just... wow.

Nope.
I'm taking your slightly different definition of a word I know nothing about, and determining that if you are correct in it's meaning, it is not a synonym of another word.
Imagine that. The possibility of people on another continent, translating a meaning and it being slightly thrown off. Wow. Just... wow.
And to think they're very similar.

I've heard a definition of the word "tosser". Do I take it as correct? Sure, why not? It's not important enough to research.
Imagine how many Americans could get the wrong idea if I start telling people a slightly misconstrued meaning of this word. People might even consider it synonyms with another word, and be incorrect.

I'm not saying that had to happen, or did happen. I'm saying it's the best bet to what happened if you are correct on two things, the first being the meaning of barry, and the second that they are considered synonyms.

A window tint could be a rice/Barry mod. It reduces the amount of light entering the cabin, making the window which is tinted harder to see through - much more so at night.

But you never said it has to be detrimental to performance. You said it only needs no performance gain.

Or it could be a non-rice/Barry mod. If you're driving a refridgerated van and the rear windows aren't actually used to see through.

But it's a "show" part. Therefore, by your own definition, you are wrong in this example. Because you never said it must be detrimental to performance. Only that it is barry if it offers no gain.

Neither do I. Rendering every single one of your following assumptions quite hilariously wrong.

You referenced your Miata.
Didn't you say in another thread, "My Miata weighs 24xxlbs"?
If not, it's a shame, I had you completely pictured in an indigo Miata.
Even though the door pictures was red.

I tailor my words to my audience. You haven't got a clue, so that's what you get.

That's what I thought. Stock replacement.
You can claim whatever you like, but you're using more than enough generalizations yourself, while claiming:

I like technical

You just... don't get it. Anything. Every post you make on this site is an argument why what you believe is right and is issued in the face of all technical knowledge to the contrary from people who are expert in the field. And then you get abusive and insulting and blame everyone but yourself and your own lack of knowledge in the field (any field) for the argument that takes place.

This is, simply, the behaviour of a troll and until you accept that there are people who know more about things, you will never, ever learn any better. I would have been more than happy for an expert like Scaff to come into this thread and tell me that I'm wrong - and where I went wrong in the process...

Neither you nor Scaff has actually told me anything I've been wrong in yet.
You've told me I was wrong, when you skipped parts of my posts, and you've told me I was wrong, on things I have not said.
The single thing that you've told me I was wrong about, and were not incorrect on what I said, is the definition of "rice".
There's a rule in English, I learned this in 6th grade - No two words in the English language have the exact same meaning. One of two reasons you never define a word by another word.
You have taken the liberty to use slang terms "rice" and "barry" as the exact same meaning.

Actually, the things you're saying "Hey, I never said that!" are things you should be saying.

Rotors are not cross-drilled or slotted for cooling. They are vented (radial tubes through the body of the rotor) for cooling. Slots and holes release gas buildup under the pads, keeping the pads in better contact with the rotor, which does help with both pedal feel and stopping distances. Notice that race cars with carbon/carbon brakes are not drilled or slotted, but they most definitely are vented. The carbon pad material doesn't generate gas pressure which tries to lift the pad off the rotor, so drilling is not required.

The only rotors that dissipate heat better are bigger ones, or vented replacing solid.

This is interesting, And I'll give it the credit it sounds plausible.
Even more interesting neither Famine or Scaff said anything of this.
So I'll look this up a while.

each rotor is then precision, drilled or slotted by Brakeworld to provide multiple paths to disperse built-up heat and gasses.

First look says heat and gases.
I do have to say, I think to believe that having holes in your rotors would not help them cool faster, seems physically impossible. It may not be the main benefit, but I'm willing to bet it is a benefit nonetheless.

But, I'll ask you now, what exactly are rotors which "disburse heat better" I believe was Famines phrase.

You may be confusing "resonator" with "muffler" here. A resonator is called such because it either adds a burble to the exhaust note, or gives a standing wave a place to release its resonance. One adds noise, one quiets noise, but both at a specific frequency.

No. I know this for two reasons.
Number one - The Muffler is under the rear bumper.
Number 2 - Part Number:
103266 - http://www.autozone.com/autozone/ca...&navValue=16100441&itemId=441-0&parentId=61-0
Notes:
Resonator

As for 1db quieter, the human ear is not capable of detecting a 1db difference, even in side-by-side comparisons, much less after the time taken changing something out. If you're listening to music and have someone adjust the volume knob, it will change by at least about 3db before you detect the change.

That's perfect then. Because I can't hear the slightest difference.

And if you think making a car quiet has nothing to do with engineering, then your case is, as Famine states, pretty hopeless.

I'll ask you one, very simple question: Have I ever said that?

 

[Famine]

Yay! More bacon!

Ok then it's settled.
Wider tires are installed because they reduce brake component temperatures.
Because that is why Porsche uses drilled brakes to reduce brake temperatures.

Your words, not mine.

Nope. Wholly yours. For instance, you believe that making holes in a disc makes it more efficient as a heat sink.

That's not the reason Porsche puts drilled brakes on their cars (mainly because that doesn't occur). There is only one reason.

But your statements are always missing something, whether it's the who, what, where, why, or how. If not all of them.

You don't have the wit or knowledge to understand them.

I imagine I've confused many people with the sentence comparing wide tyres and drilled discs. However, they are not the people saying they have good technical knowledge and an above-par understanding of physics.

This is your response to "you didn't make one".

I know. I typed it.

You denied it's meaning.
The technical reason Porsche puts them on, is to reduce brake temperatures.
You are technical, you say so yourself.

However - there is more than one reason they put them on.
therefore - Because unless you specify which reason you're referring to, one is left to guess. I chose the technical reason, since it came from a technical person.
Ain't specifics great?

They are indeed. Incidentally, there isn't a technical reason Porsche fits drilled discs to road cars.

I'm impressed you didn't sidetrack us into another sidebar about why birds and planes fly.
However, it's not wrong.
Birds and planes fly because there is enough lifting wind force generated by their wings to lift them off the ground.
Wait - Don't tell me there is more than one way that could be taken!
Does this mean the specific reason being used for "why" is necessary after all?

However it is wrong. You've decided there's more than one meaning to my sentence - there is not - and you've construed an analogy you think fits the same pattern. Your initial assumption is wrong and your contingent analogy is thus not fit.

You see, if the reason you were referring to was that it helps performance, then yes, Super wide tires are installed for the same reason drilled rotors are. But if you meant because they cool the brakes, then you were wrong. And yes, there's more provability's!
Ain't specifics great?

I meant neither. I said what I meant. I only ever say what I mean. You keep insisting on interpreting things that do not need your interpretation - and it is your interpretation that trips you up.

As previously pointed out, you have a set of beliefs which are innately contradictory and you refuse to listen to anyone who would upgrade your knowledge. You are fundamentally unwilling to learn.

It was used before the 90's. It became massively popular in the 90's.

So what does it have to do with your "stupid kids" with their early 90s Japanese cars?

I bring three non-exclusive definitions to you, and you tell me yours is the only right one while accusing me of making up my own definition and sticking to it.

Nope.
I'm taking your slightly different definition of a word I know nothing about, and determining that if you are correct in it's meaning, it is not a synonym of another word.
Imagine that. The possibility of people on another continent, translating a meaning and it being slightly thrown off. Wow. Just... wow.
And to think they're very similar.

I've heard a definition of the word "tosser". Do I take it as correct? Sure, why not? It's not important enough to research.
Imagine how many Americans could get the wrong idea if I start telling people a slightly misconstrued meaning of this word. People might even consider it synonyms with another word, and be incorrect.

I'm not saying that had to happen, or did happen. I'm saying it's the best bet to what happened if you are correct on two things, the first being the meaning of barry, and the second that they are considered synonyms.

Hmm. Not only do you not know the meanings of either "rice" or "Barry" (or "Jacky"), you don't seem to know the meaning of the word "synonym". Interesting.

But you never said it has to be detrimental to performance. You said it only needs no performance gain.

Right. Where's the disconnect again?

But it's a "show" part. Therefore, by your own definition, you are wrong in this example. Because you never said it must be detrimental to performance. Only that it is barry if it offers no gain.

Sorry? Something that helps the interior of a vehicle designed to stay cool to stay cool is not an aid to the vehicle's performance? One of the purposes of one of my cars is to carry our labradors, so having the rear screen tinted to 100% helps that purpose - it improves an aspect of the car's performance - the aspect of comfortably carrying our labradors.

You referenced your Miata.

MX-5. Miatas are all left-hand drive and North American market.

Didn't you say in another thread, "My Miata weighs 24xxlbs"?

MX-5. I might have done. I have, after all, owned two of them. But, last I checked, people are allowed to buy and sell cars.

If not, it's a shame, I had you completely pictured in an indigo Miata.
Even though the door pictures was red.

I've owned three red cars, three green, one burgundy and one blue - and I've also had access to one blue and one silver company car.

Not sure why it's relevant - I don't own an MX-5.

That's what I thought. Stock replacement.

Nope. Upgrades. Already told you this - and exactly what has been upgraded and how - and don't appreciate being called a liar because I haven't brought you brand names. Don't do it again.

Neither you nor Scaff has actually told me anything I've been wrong in yet.

Then you're not looking hard enough. But that's been a hallmark across both your accounts. Along with abandoning lines of enquiry and trying to evolve discussion along different paths.

There's a rule in English, I learned this in 6th grade - No two words in the English language have the exact same meaning. One of two reasons you never define a word by another word.
You have taken the liberty to use slang terms "rice" and "barry" as the exact same meaning.

In which English language? American English or English? I'm pretty sure that "faucet" and "tap" have the exact same meaning, just in the different English languages. "Sidewalk" and "pavement" also. "Hood" and "bonnet"?

I'll note that I've told you three definitions of "rice" and you insist just one is right (in the face of etymologists) - the one that happens to be most synonymous with "Barry" rather than the two that aren't even close. And then told me I'm defining things.

Still, at least back in 6th grade you were willing to learn things. I wonder when and why you stopped?

 

[niky]

MIT? They have a UK branch? Really?

Ok then it's settled.
Wider tires are installed because they reduce brake component temperatures.
Because that is why Porsche uses drilled brakes to reduce brake temperatures.

He said the same reason.

What reason did Porsche have for putting holes in the brake discs? Heat. What reason do they have for putting wider tires on?



Bing bing bing. Heat.

Wider tires will have the same contact patch as narrower tires. But wider tires will have... gasp... a wider contact patch, while narrower tires will have a long and narrow contact patch. This wider contact patch is shorter front-to-back than it would otherwise be, since the contact patch remains constant. Since it's shorter, that means less flex as the tire rotates. Less flex means less heat generation. Less heat generation means your tires will stay cooler over the course of a lap. They won't make more lateral G's on a simple test, but at the end of ten laps, their performance won't degrade as much as a narrower tire.

Same with your drilled brakes.

Missed a whole lot of burning love in here... just wanted to add my 0.02 cents on one or two items.

Yep. Outright coefficient of grip is tough to beat. 10mm of the same crusty rubber with a low accuracy gauge while it's warm out... don't bother.

Tell me about it. When we did the Mini event, we had cars on the stock 15" and the stock 17" wheels. The ones on the 17" wheels had some cruddy Yoks on, that despite being about 225mm wide and with a sidewall shorter than my manliness, performed significantly worse than the Contis on the 15" rims. As a result, I kept butting up against the Cooper S in front of me in the corners in my dinky Cooper, simply because I had more grip.

One of the worst tests we ever had was a Toyota Yaris sedan with 215/45R17s on it. Rear end felt like nails dragging across a chalkboard. Skippety-skip-skip-skip.

-

Funny, though, about there being "no proof" for moderate-sidewalled tires over ultra-low profiles. I remember a track test from TG Australia which showed that the ultra-low profiles on some Holden factory special were slower around the track than standard fitment.

I had an Oldsmobile which could easily lock it's 185, but when fitted with a higher models 215's, it could not lock the brakes.

Clue, higher model. Higher performance tires are often available in bigger sizes than standard. Buy a tire of the same compound as stock, and performance will be similar.

I guess. Still haven't seen any documentation of anyone losing power off any after-market intake and cat-back exhaust.

I have. Simota, anyone?

I haven't seen many examples of power loss off a catback, but we've seen tons of cases where a catback didn't gain any power on the dyno. Come to think of it, we have cases where cars have not gained any power on the dyno from a relatively expensive filter like a K&N. Stock placement sticks the filter in hot radiator air. There's a reason reversing the rotation of one measly radiator fan gained Honda 10 midrange HP on the second generation GD Fit.

And even if people have lost power from giant exhausts, it still won't give you an answer as to where the line is between gaining performance and losing it.

There is a line. It just differs from application to application.

The last option is that BMW, one the highest-renowned handling manufactures, doesn't put in all the thought and engineering into wheel/tire packages you seem to believe they do.

BMW threw their brains out the window when they started fitting everything except the Ms with run-flats.

So my only suggestion to you, is to stop assuming what you hear and read is granite, and test it. Slap a cone filter intake on that Miata, or BMW, and if you don't have a dragstrip, buy a G-tech if you don't have one, and test them down the same section of legal ground, hell, illegal ground for all I care.

I don't care about dyno results for it, unless there's a big-assed fan blowing just like driving wind on that car, at the appropriate speed.
A Ram-Air car might dyno as low or lower vs the same car without it, but that doesn't mean it has less power driving does it?

A G-Tech is a horrible way to assess mods. A dyno is accurate and repeatable. Not exactly representative of real-world conditions, but it's at least a somewhat repeatable test. I can gain or lose three to four-tenths in on-road testing due to uncontrollable environmental variables with my V-Box (which is more accurate than a G-Tech... as long as the weather is good).

Granted, a dyno might show more of a power-gain for a CAI or Ram-air system than you would get in the real world, but everything else is just guesswork.

 

[Famine]

A G-Tech is a horrible way to assess mods.

I was going to remark that it was only one step up from the iPhone g-meter app, but I couldn't be bothered

Incidentally, not heat either - though drilled discs are often advertised as offering performance advantages through better dissipation of heat (air is not a better conductor than iron) or preventing the "build up of gases" (wtf?), neither is actually true but you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise. They only have the one purpose on a road car (maybe two, if you're a real hardcore cynic).

 

[Scaff]

Worked in technical training. Hmmm.
So you work through MIT at an R&D to certify inspection mechanics?
You are certified in technical repair for vehicles?
You teach technical repair?
You assist in training for technical repair?
Who, what, where, why, when, or how, would be the key factors.

I have worked in training in the warehousing industry.
Did I teach? What did I teach? Who did I teach? (as in what job were they learning to do?) Where did I teach it? (as in hands on, in the field, on the job, in a classroom)
See how all these questions pile up?

Depends on what type of technical training. Emissions inspection training? Engine development training?

I can't tell you. All you said is "worked in" "technical training".
Neither the how, or the what necessary have you included.

Worked with how? I know warehouse workers that transferred an LS1 into a pickup so small it required the firewall to be moved.
And it worked.
Now I'm not busting on your job with this, just saying, again, specifics are great.
When I was a kid I handed my dad tools. I could say I "worked" on lawnmowers at the age of 7. Specifics are great.

Why exactly do I have to provide my life story to you in this manner?

What exactly does it add to this discussion?

All you seem to want to do is detract from the issue at hand.

Namely that Famine and I stated that you simply can't slap on any old filter and exhuast and expect to see gains from it, and pointed out that the end result could be a loss, gain or bugger all.

To be blunt you are 'busting' on my job and I don't apprecate it one bit, feel free to carry on and I make feel the need to do the same in regard to your degree of experience and or knowledge.

And what factors were involved? Sound? Power? Fuel economy? powerband? space? Cost?
I'd still bet they never tried a cone filter directly on the throttle body, Until you say otherwise.

No I will admit that a cone filter directly attached to the throttle body was never tried, because to be blunt you would have to be a moron to believe that to do so would give you any advantage at all, particularly in a mid-engined car.

Now a question for you, let me know exactly why you would have to be a moron to think this was worthwhile in a Clio V6. Show me the product of all your years experience in this answer.

Maybe I jumped on the band wagon. It's easy to do, especially when everything you say is taken as "always" and "forever" and "100%" Despite saying the exact opposite.

If you don't qualify your statements how exactly do you expect them to be taken.


Scaff

 

[TrievelA7X]

Yay! More bacon!

Cute.

Nope. Wholly yours. For instance, you believe that making holes in a disc makes it more efficient as a heat sink.

That's not the reason Porsche puts drilled brakes on their cars (mainly because that doesn't occur). There is only one reason.

That you haven't said - ergo, you haven't said anything worthwhile.
Now, if you would like to contribute some proof that drilled or slotted rotors do not reduce any brake component temperatures, feel free.

Since the general consensus of the manufactures says they do - You'll be needing proof of anything otherwise.

You don't have the wit or knowledge to understand them.

I imagine I've confused many people with the sentence comparing wide tyres and drilled discs. However, they are not the people saying they have good technical knowledge and an above-par understanding of physics.

Possibly, through lack of a decisive statement. How about actually stating something directly? Wait, Famine can't do that, he might be wrong.

I know. I typed it.

Great. Make some good posts now. With substance.

They are indeed. Incidentally, there isn't a technical reason Porsche fits drilled discs to road cars.

If you say so, you must be right.
Proof?

However it is wrong. You've decided there's more than one meaning to my sentence - there is not - and you've construed an analogy you think fits the same pattern. Your initial assumption is wrong and your contingent analogy is thus not fit.

Nope. Your lack of substance is what's wrong here.
Put substance in your statements.

I meant neither. I said what I meant. I only ever say what I mean. You keep insisting on interpreting things that do not need your interpretation - and it is your interpretation that trips you up.

That's all reading is. Without tone of voice, and just direct words, many meanings can come about from the same sentence. Learn this, and use it.
This is why you need to include the who, what, where, when, why, and how.
Learn how to communicate properly through typing. Like you said, openly admitting, by lack of specifics, you believe you have confused many people with one statement.
Oh, that's right, you take it as a form of intelligence, ergo it boosts your inferiority complex.

As previously pointed out, you have a set of beliefs which are innately contradictory and you refuse to listen to anyone who would upgrade your knowledge. You are fundamentally unwilling to learn.

You can't say what those are, which makes this statement worth jack.
What contradicts what, and how?

So what does it have to do with your "stupid kids" with their early 90s Japanese cars?

That's when it became immensely popular, and the phrase actually became know to a substantial portion of the world.

I bring three non-exclusive definitions to you, and you tell me yours is the only right one while accusing me of making up my own definition and sticking to it.

No you didn't.
You said "all-show-no-go". And then you modified it.

Hmm. Not only do you not know the meanings of either "rice" or "Barry" (or "Jacky"), you don't seem to know the meaning of the word "synonym". Interesting.

And you don't know the meaning of the word rotor.
Please show how, for each. Or it's worth the same as what I said.
You don't get it, it's not "Famines world" where Famine gets to decide he wins, based on saying "you don't know jack".
Prove something, give a description, make statements with substance, instead of feeding your inferiority complex by trying to use what you believe to be word trickery to feel intellectually Superior.

And yes, you definitely have an inferiority complex, as all you do is wander these forums daily trying to point out errors, and confuse people in different way of statements with no substantial substance.

Right. Where's the disconnect again?

This is what I mean. Where's the substance? You directly contradicted yourself, (substance time!) By saying that an upgrade is rice if it offers no performance gain, only to then state that window tint would not be rice so long as it does not hinder performance.
And you question my intelligence? You're throwing your own definition, which is what started this argument, all over the place whenever and wherever you please.
Prove me wrong. Hell, if you want, tomorrow I'll copy and post all of your contradicting definitions. But only if you start making posts with substance, and actually backing your claims such as brake manufactures are all lying or wrong about what their products do.

Sorry? Something that helps the interior of a vehicle designed to stay cool to stay cool is not an aid to the vehicle's performance? One of the purposes of one of my cars is to carry our labradors, so having the rear screen tinted to 100% helps that purpose - it improves an aspect of the car's performance - the aspect of comfortably carrying our labradors.[/color][/b]

Wow. Ok, so when you say performance, you mean it in it's "functional" sense. There are two types of performance.
Anywho, this is substance!
And here's what you've earned:
You said car stereo's are rice, because they're show. If I upgrade my speakers, and make my stereo perform better, then it's not rice.
You insisted it is.
Do you need a quote?

Thanks, it's fun catching when you do actually say something.

MX-5. Miatas are all left-hand drive and North American market.

Yep. A Miata. We also have "MX-5's". Guess what? They're still Miatas. Mr technical, while loving the technical name difference, should understand that technically, it's the same car, revamped to fit Euro standards.Tthere's usually more than one technicality, and they don't usually have the same conclusion.

MX-5. I might have done. I have, after all, owned two of them. But, last I checked, people are allowed to buy and sell cars.

Cool. It's a Miata.

I've owned three red cars, three green, one burgundy and one blue - and I've also had access to one blue and one silver company car.

Not sure why it's relevant - I don't own an MX-5.

Great. Glad you sold it, they're chick cars.
But there you go, proving my point exactly.
rather than either just refuse to say what "mods" you put on your car, whichever one it may be, you'd rather argue that it's an MX-5, as though there's a significant difference.
If all you want to do is argue BS, go bother someone else. Because this is the last meaningless reply of yours I'm bothering with.

We started about what "rice" is. You threw in your opinions of technicality left and right, sidetracked us to wheel and tire arguments, whether different mods will improve power, changed your standards for the word in question, and made statements with no substance.

If you don't know or are to childish and refuse due to "superior intelligence" or whatever you may claim, don't waste time bringing it up again.

If you don't know or again refuse to say why you think car companies use drilled rotors and wide tires, don't bring it up again.

If you still think there's only one reason, after insisting there is, then contradicting yourself and admitting there technically may be or are two reasons, or whatever your standpoint is there, don't bother bringing it up again.

There's just no point.
Not because I can't grasp it, because there's nothing to grasp.

Nope. Upgrades. Already told you this - and exactly what has been upgraded and how - and don't appreciate being called a liar because I haven't brought you brand names. Don't do it again.

I have to. It's not because (Oh my God, Famine made an incorrect assumption?) you didn't state brand names.
Did I say it was? Nope. Guess you couldn't "grasp it".

But I have to because you can't say what they were, I don't need a brand name to know what they are, but "higher friction" and "stainless" along with "stickier" are terms for the car ignorant. (I know, you'll say "that's why I chose them for you".
Well, you call me ignorant, I call you a liar, evens out. Insult for insult, upstanding mod.
Now if you'd like to be informed, "carbon" and "carbon ceramic", along with "Z-Rated" or "Y-rated" and "2 1/4inch" or "mandrel bent" would be the defining terms of what you may have done to your car. Not "higher friction, stainless, stickier".

Then you're not looking hard enough. But that's been a hallmark across both your accounts. Along with abandoning lines of enquiry and trying to evolve discussion along different paths.

Nope. I offer alternate examples, which you argue in themselves, at which point I reply.

In which English language? American English or English? I'm pretty sure that "faucet" and "tap" have the exact same meaning, just in the different English languages. "Sidewalk" and "pavement" also. "Hood" and "bonnet"?

But barry and rice were conceived separately. One came about, and another, each individually. If you'd gotten the term "rice" already, there'd have been no point in inventing "barry".
just as Americans already have ricer, so no need to make another one. That is, until it runs out of style.

I'll note that I've told you three definitions of "rice" and you insist just one is right (in the face of etymologists) - the one that happens to be most synonymous with "Barry" rather than the two that aren't even close. And then told me I'm defining things.

You've changed your meaning.

Still, at least back in 6th grade you were willing to learn things. I wonder when and why you stopped?

Never did. But I had reason to believe the English textbook. You haven't given any.

Like I said, substance, or just don't bother replying. I don't care to read your redundant posts which repeat like a broken record while still lacking the meaning they require.

 

[Scaff]

Incidentally, not heat either - though drilled discs are often advertised as offering performance advantages through better dissipation of heat (air is not a better conductor than iron) or preventing the "build up of gases" (wtf?), neither is actually true but you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise. They only have the one purpose on a road car (maybe two, if you're a real hardcore cynic).

Hmmm, an area of much debate (on both counts) and I would counter that it actually depends on exactly how well designed the rotor is.

Drilled or cross-drilled rotors : Discs that have been drilled through with a non-intersecting pattern of radial holes. The objects are to provide a number of paths to get rid of the boundary layer of out gassed volatiles and incandescent particles of friction material and to increase "bite" through the provision of many leading edges. The advent of carbon metallic friction materials with their increased temperatures and thermal shock characteristics ended the day of the drilled disc in professional racing. They are still seen (mainly as cosmetic items) on motorbikes and some road going sports cars. Typically in original equipment road car applications these holes are cast then finished machined to provide the best possible conditions by which to resist cracking in use. But they will crack eventually under the circumstances described in another section (see Cracking). Properly designed, drilled discs tend to operate cooler than non-drilled ventilated discs of the same design due the higher flow rates through the vents from the supplemental inlets and increased surface area in the hole. That's right, inlets. The flow is into the hole and out through the vent to the OD of the disc. If discs are to be drilled, the external edges of the holes must be chamfered (or, better yet, radiused) and should also be peened.

Source - http://www.stoptech.com/tech_info/glossary.shtml

Stop-Tech are an excellent source of info on all aspects of brake performance, and the white papers they have compiled are both respected within the industry and well worth a read.

http://www.stoptech.com/tech_info/tech_white_papers.shtml

Great. Glad you sold it, they're chick cars.

And with that one statement you manage to sum up just about everything I find annoying about your entire attitude.



Regards

Scaff

 

[Blitz187]

Incidentally, not heat either - though drilled discs are often advertised as offering performance advantages through better dissipation of heat (air is not a better conductor than iron) or preventing the "build up of gases" (wtf?), neither is actually true but you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise. They only have the one purpose on a road car (maybe two, if you're a real hardcore cynic).

*raises hand*

OH OH OH Me!!!!!

Uhhh.... is it to prevent a film of water building up between the disc and the brake pad???

-edit: Nevermind... Tree'd by Scaff... Even though this is one of the reasons I found for the use of cross-drilled rotors on road cars.

 

[Famine]

Blitz - that is a reason Porsche give, yes. If you ask them. Often enough.

That you haven't said - ergo, you haven't said anything worthwhile.
Now, if you would like to contribute some proof that drilled or slotted rotors do not reduce any brake component temperatures, feel free.

When did slotted discs come into it? Oh, right, you're interpreting again.

Since the general consensus of the manufactures says they do - You'll be needing proof of anything otherwise.

They also say they remove the build up of gas from the friction of the pads. This was true in the 1950s, but pads aren't made like that any more.

Possibly, through lack of a decisive statement.

Nope. Those who actually have the knowledge know that the sentence is true, complete and correct. Those who do not will be confused. Those who pretend to know physics and things about cars will invent meaning and dance about with things they don't understand but pretend they do.

How about actually stating something directly? Wait, Famine can't do that, he might be wrong.

I did. The crux is that you don't think I did.

Great. Make some good posts now. With substance.

As above.

Nope. Your lack of substance is what's wrong here.
Put substance in your statements.

As above.

That's all reading is. Without tone of voice, and just direct words, many meanings can come about from the same sentence. Learn this, and use it.
This is why you need to include the who, what, where, when, why, and how.
Learn how to communicate properly through typing. Like you said, openly admitting, by lack of specifics, you believe you have confused many people with one statement.
Oh, that's right, you take it as a form of intelligence, ergo it boosts your inferiority complex.

Lulz. Now we're well into the amateur psychology and ad hominems.

Everything I type is what I mean to say. You, apparently, mean things other than that which you type and insist on reading things into other people's posts (when you do read them). Read the lines, not between them.

You can't say what those are, which makes this statement worth jack.
What contradicts what, and how?

You repeatedly contradict yourself - and have done in this thread - and yet believe wholeheartedly that both statements are correct.

That's when it became immensely popular, and the phrase actually became know to a substantial portion of the world.

So you've acknowledged that it was invented before the 90s and popularised later, but still insist the correct definition is only the one about kids "distastefully" modifying their 90s cars?

No you didn't.
You said "all-show-no-go". And then you modified it.

"All show, no go" is the soundbite version.

And you don't know the meaning of the word rotor.

Which meaning?

Please show how, for each. Or it's worth the same as what I said.
You don't get it, it's not "Famines world" where Famine gets to decide he wins, based on saying "you don't know jack".
Prove something, give a description, make statements with substance, instead of feeding your inferiority complex by trying to use what you believe to be word trickery to feel intellectually Superior.

And yes, you definitely have an inferiority complex, as all you do is wander these forums daily trying to point out errors, and confuse people in different way of statements with no substantial substance.

That's not all I do. For instance I breathe and have a heartbeat. Also a wife, a child, two dogs, two cats, several cars and a happy, fulfilling life.

But then, as Scaff pointed out to you, the discussion isn't about our lives and careers. It's about your refusal to acknowledge that there are people who know more about this than you do and to learn from them. That you seem now intent on discussing us is somewhat telling.

This is what I mean. Where's the substance? You directly contradicted yourself, (substance time!) By saying that an upgrade is rice if it offers no performance gain, only to then state that window tint would not be rice so long as it does not hinder performance.

Learn to read. I did not say the last part.

I seem to have to tell you this in every thread you divert with your incessant drivel. Stop inventing what I (or others) have said.

And you question my intelligence? You're throwing your own definition, which is what started this argument, all over the place whenever and wherever you please.

Actually, YOU decided to "start this argument" by telling JohnBM01 he was wrong - two years after his post - because your definition was the right one. I agreed with him.

Wow. Ok, so when you say performance, you mean it in it's "functional" sense. There are two types of performance.
Anywho, this is substance!
And here's what you've earned:
You said car stereo's are rice, because they're show. If I upgrade my speakers, and make my stereo perform better, then it's not rice.
You insisted it is.
Do you need a quote?

If your car is a dB Drag Car, you will improve its performance by upgrading your stereo. dB Drag Cars aren't actually Barry/rice, but upgrading your car stereo can be (in the same way stickers on a race car aren't, but the same ones on a road car are).

There's no contradiction - you just don't understand.

Thanks, it's fun catching when you do actually say something.

As above.

Yep. A Miata. We also have "MX-5's". Guess what? They're still Miatas. Mr technical, while loving the technical name difference, should understand that technically, it's the same car, revamped to fit Euro standards.Tthere's usually more than one technicality, and they don't usually have the same conclusion.

Yeah, and you got the wrong one. The European MX-5 is the same car as the Japanese Eunos Roadster/Mazda Roadster/Mazda MX-5. The American Miata is the revamped version.

Cool. It's a Miata.

What is? The car I don't own?

Great. Glad you sold it, they're chick cars.

Heh. As if anyone needed more information to reach the conclusion you're an automotive faker.

But there you go, proving my point exactly.
rather than either just refuse to say what "mods" you put on your car, whichever one it may be, you'd rather argue that it's an MX-5, as though there's a significant difference.
If all you want to do is argue BS, go bother someone else. Because this is the last meaningless reply of yours I'm bothering with.

I don't own an MX-5. And I don't own an MX-5.

We started about what "rice" is. You threw in your opinions of technicality left and right, sidetracked us to wheel and tire arguments, whether different mods will improve power, changed your standards for the word in question, and made statements with no substance.

Ah-ah. YOU threw in your opinions to tell JohnBM01 he was wrong (two years after his post) because your definition which applies to stupid kids in the 90s yet arose before the 90s was the only right one.

If you don't know or are to childish and refuse due to "superior intelligence" or whatever you may claim, don't waste time bringing it up again.

Find one claim of my "superior intelligence" on this site. Anywhere. When you can't, stop making crap up and pretending it's fact.

If you don't know or again refuse to say why you think car companies use drilled rotors and wide tires, don't bring it up again.

The point was to illustrate that, for all your bluster about what you know about cars, you haven't got a clue. It worked.

If you still think there's only one reason, after insisting there is, then contradicting yourself and admitting there technically may be or are two reasons, or whatever your standpoint is there, don't bother bringing it up again.

There is one reason. I added that a cynic would probably say there are two. I am not a cynic.

There's just no point.
Not because I can't grasp it, because there's nothing to grasp.

You believe there's nothing to grasp because you can't grasp it.

I have to. It's not because (Oh my God, Famine made an incorrect assumption?) you didn't state brand names.
Did I say it was? Nope. Guess you couldn't "grasp it".

But I have to because you can't say what they were

I can. I choose not to. After all, Barries and ricers talk in nothing but brand names. I don't really care what the brand names are - I merely care that they do the same job more efficiently.

I don't need a brand name to know what they are, but "higher friction" and "stainless" along with "stickier" are terms for the car ignorant. (I know, you'll say "that's why I chose them for you".
Well, you call me ignorant, I call you a liar, evens out. Insult for insult, upstanding mod.
Now if you'd like to be informed, "carbon" and "carbon ceramic", along with "Z-Rated" or "Y-rated" and "2 1/4inch" or "mandrel bent" would be the defining terms of what you may have done to your car. Not "higher friction, stainless, stickier".

What does a speed rating have to do with a tyre's coefficient of friction? Why would knowing the diameter of my exhaust when you don't even know what car I drive help? Why would knowing that someone used the correct tool to bend the pipe help ("mandrel bent" is exclusively used by idiots who think a big word makes it better - it just means "bent in a pipe bender")? What do carbon and carbon-ceramic discs have to do with the coefficient of friction of brake pads?

You're occupying the world between the dense and the technical. It can be commonly seen in IT too. It's a dangerous place - people in it often swear that the little knowledge they have means they're an expert. I live there too - only I know that I could always learn more. It's like the difference between religion and science - you believe you have all the answers, while those of us who have some of the correct ones are always trying to learn more correct ones.

But barry and rice were conceived separately. One came about, and another, each individually. If you'd gotten the term "rice" already, there'd have been no point in inventing "barry".

So were pavement and sidewalk. America already had "pavement" so what was the point in inventing "sidewalk"?

You've changed your meaning.

Nope. The meaning I'm using has been unchanged since 2002.

Hmmm, an area of much debate (on both counts) and I would counter that it actually depends on exactly how well designed the rotor is.

Indeed. Porsche actually cast their holes, which goes some way towards diminishing one of the negatives.

I would consider "drilled" discs for the track car (though they'd have to be a better price) but never on a road car, at any price.

 

[Neal]

Drilled discs make a nice "sizzle" noise

 

[wfooshee]

And if you think making a car quiet has nothing to do with engineering, then your case is, as Famine states, pretty hopeless.

I'll ask you one, very simple question: Have I ever said that?

Well, yes, actually:

And it had nothing to do with engineering, other than the knowledge that resonators make cars quieter.

 

[niky]

I was going to remark that it was only one step up from the iPhone g-meter app, but I couldn't be bothered

Incidentally, not heat either - though drilled discs are often advertised as offering performance advantages through better dissipation of heat (air is not a better conductor than iron) or preventing the "build up of gases" (wtf?), neither is actually true but you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise. They only have the one purpose on a road car (maybe two, if you're a real hardcore cynic).

Actually the build-up of gasses is the line that I've always heard bandied around... though independent testing of larger diameter cross-drilled / slotted performance rotors do often have mixed results, with stock often outperforming them (in one group test, I think it was a VW Golf GTI tuner challenge, a car with stock brakes came in second out of eight).

Some tests have shown that they're more consistent over repeated stops, but whether that's due to the extra diameter or due to the holes or some combination of both, was never clear to me.

What is widely accepted is that bigger discs are often more desirable than stock-sized drilled rotors, since bigger rotors do make a better heat sink, while drilled rotors do not... but since we couldn't bracket 11 inch discs to my car... and I'm too cheap to buy the US uprights and front suspension that has those discs as standard, I went for the cheaper solution.

So sue me, my stock discs were toast. But on the very next track day, with cross-drilled rotors, and DOT4 fluid, I still boiled my brake fluid. Sigh. Back to the drawing board.

"Z-Rated" or "Y-rated"

Completely irrelevant when talking about tire grip. My tires are "V-rated" and yet have more grip than many "Z" or "Y" rated tires. In this case, if you want to use fancy, insider-ish terms, "R-comp" would mean much more to anyone interested in performance than "Z-rated"... though R-comps are complete overkill for road use.

I don't care to read your redundant posts which repeat like a broken record while still lacking the meaning they require.

Pot. Teacup. Black. Wait... teacups aren't black, now, are they?

 

[wfooshee]

But on the very next track day, with cross-drilled rotors, and DOT4 fluid, I still boiled my brake fluid. Sigh. Back to the drawing board.

Well, since drilled rotors have nothing to do with heat capacity, no surprises there. DOT4 fluid has a higher minimum boiling point, but most fluids well exceed the minimums anyway, so actual differences between DOT-3 and -4 may not be the 40-some odd degrees of the specs.

To dissipate heat, you need surface area. That's what large discs do: increase the surface area. That's also what venting does. You've added all that surface from the once solid interior, adding at least 50% to the total surface area of the disk exposed to the air. How much surface area does a hole add? .04%? Maybe?

When I was autocrossing my '95 Probe GT, its weakness was brake fade. If we had a course with lots of heavy braking, I'd try to go as early as possible on my first run and as late as possible on my second. Miatas have bigger brakes than Probes. Apparently unsprung weight (or more likely, price of parts) was a higher priority for the designers than actual brake function.

Pot. Teacup. Black. Wait... teacups aren't black, now, are they?

It's pot, kettle, etc.

 

[niky]

Well, since drilled rotors have nothing to do with heat capacity, no surprises there. DOT4 fluid has a higher minimum boiling point, but most fluids well exceed the minimums anyway, so actual differences between DOT-3 and -4 may not be the 40-some odd degrees of the specs.

To dissipate heat, you need surface area. That's what large discs do: increase the surface area. That's also what venting does. You've added all that surface from the once solid interior, adding at least 50% to the total surface area of the disk exposed to the air. How much surface area does a hole add? .04%? Maybe?

When I was autocrossing my '95 Probe GT, its weakness was brake fade. If we had a course with lots of heavy braking, I'd try to go as early as possible on my first run and as late as possible on my second. Miatas have bigger brakes than Probes. Apparently unsprung weight (or more likely, price of parts) was a higher priority for the designers than actual brake function.

Major OT: Funny... our cars are built on the same basic platform (mine is a Protege, which was built on a shortened/narrowed Probe/626 platform) and have the same basic issue. No brakes after just a few laps. (real fun when you're going wheel to wheel and you're riding someone's tailpipe up to a hairpin). Tried working around the boiling issue with braided lines, but no dice. Now I have lines, pads and discs. Haven't tested this on track, but if it still don't work, I'm going to suck it up and buy those Mazdaspeed Protege brake calipers and upgrade to the 11" slotted (not drilled) discs.

It's pot, kettle, etc.

I picture Famine more as a monocled Mad Hatter carrying an indigo teacup. With his pinky raised. All English supervillains drink tea, right?

 

[Famine]

I'm a coffee man. Sorry. I've been accused of being a closet American more than once

 

[Gil]

*cowers his tiny frame in the corner*
But what does this all have to do with the ORIGINAL QUESTION?
Don't get me wrong, it's been entertaining and all.

I love it when people argue with Famine and Scaff.
Though something I learned in college. "Weak Point? Shout!"
TrievelA7x, are you listening?

And while we are taking about ricing bikes, does anyone think the Can-AM car/bike hybrid thingie (technical term) will have any potential for modding (good or bad).

 

[wfooshee]

But what does this all have to do with the ORIGINAL QUESTION?

Ooh! Ooh! Does this count?
(Sorry for the size, not my pic, stolen off teh interwebz)

 

[niky]

Gads... that's even worse than the traditional extended swingarm silliness...

I mean, yes, a long arm does wonders for drag racing... but matching it with a huge, heavy chrome wheel? Ugh.

To each his own, though... besides, that probably makes the bike 99% less prone to tipping over... and 100% harder to pick up when it does.