Quote from tristancliffe :

Yup, driven one. Two actually.
They weren't called Widowmakers for nothing!
They have a lot of weight over the backwheel that the driver doesn't balance. They have a high polar moment of inertia, meaning they are quite easy to drive until you've got the back out, and then they act like a pendulum - much more so than any mid-engined car.
Having the gearbox in front of the engine helps, but it's still a daft place to put an engine in the first place. Kudos to Porsche for making them handle like a normal car - only took them 40 years.
You say that lots of weight over the rear tyres helps traction out of corners, but lack of weight over the front tyres helps traction under braking? Which?

Tristan... Haven't you learned yet that Blueflame just comes here once every couple weeks and just tries to bait a bunch of people into an argument?

Yes. But I'm happy in the knowledge that there aren't many topics he'll be able to win on!!!!! I wonder what he does for a living?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Yes. But I'm happy in the knowledge that there aren't many topics he'll be able to win on!!!!! I wonder what he does for a living?

he's obviously a professional driver-relationship therapist-policeman-troll-antenna designer-master of everything-all knower of the universe.

Or maybe just an idiot?

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

he's obviously a professional driver-relationship therapist-policeman-troll-antenna designer-master of everything-all knower of the universe.

He IS Intrepid????

Quote from JJ72 :

He IS Intrepid????

We do have quite a number of Intrepid-esque people on this forum.

but there can be only one!

hahahaha I actually enjoy it when people give me a good old pixel bashing!

Quote from tristancliffe :

I wonder what he does for a living?

Well he lives near the docks and he's still quite young.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Well he lives near the docks and he's still quite young.

Young? In mind... maybe.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Young? In mind... maybe.

Well, your Dress hides the age well.

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

Well, your Dress hides the age well.

Robe Of Wisdom my friend, a Robe Of Wisdom..

You're wearing it wrong then!

Quote from tristancliffe :

You're wearing it wrong then!

Oh, so that's why people have been shouting shuttlecock in my general direction then...

Quote from BlueFlame :

Oh, so that's why people have been shouting shuttlecock in my general direction then...

Maybe just cock they've been screaming at you.

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

Maybe just cock they've been screaming at you.

This, BlueFlame stop trying to be so 'interllectual'.

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

Maybe just cock they've been screaming at you.

Nah, LFSforum users are from a wormhole, they don't exist in real life.

Hmm.. Imperial is arbitary and Metric isn't??

Don't know.. when you look at exactly how SI measures are defined, it seems just as arbitary as Imperial to me

SI unit definitions, (not many nice round numbers to be seen):

http://www.bipm.org/en/si/base_units/

metre m

kilogram kg

second s

kelvin K

mole mol1.

candela cd

I'm sure you realise that when taken like that, any measurement invented is arbitrary of course. We have to invent a set length before we can benchmark it systematically. The imperial system cleverly uses a range of reasonably logical measurements such as 'feet', but it's a system that is more prone to becoming inaccurate and confusing as time goes on. It simply doesn't make as much sense as the metric system beyond the very basics by which the measurements are defined. (eg, how do you define a meter to a person who has never seen the length of a meter, as opposed to defining one foot, which is roughly one foot.)

Where metric makes more sense than imperial is the simple use of predictible scales when increasing or decreasing numbers used in measurements.

1kg = 1000 grams
1l = 1000 ml
1l weighs as much as 1kg
100 cm is a meter
1000 meter is a kilometer

I am 181 centimeters tall, 1.81 meters, or even 0.0018 km - as opposed to I am 5 feet and 11.26 inches (or is it 5.94 feet?) or 71.26 inches.

No person unfamiliar with the imperial system would be able to tell you what a mile is in inches, or even feet if they're particularly slow on calculations.

Having said that, whatever you're used to is undoubtedly what makes the most sense to you, as the issue surrounding this discussion is perspective. You grow up with imperial and it makes sense, much like your native language. Strange 'languages' have a different set of logical rules that may or may not make sense to you. It's probably a lot harder to get used to the imperial system if you grew up with the metric system than vice versa though, although that's pure speculation. The metric system just seems to have a more structured 'grammar' (gotta stick to the language theme here :P)

EDIT: meh, read post above

Quote from Jertje :

I'm sure you realise that when taken like that, any measurement invented is arbitrary of course. We have to invent a set length before we can benchmark it systematically. The imperial system cleverly uses a range of reasonably logical measurements such as 'feet', but it's a system that is more prone to becoming inaccurate and confusing as time goes on. It simply doesn't make as much sense as the metric system beyond the very basics by which the measurements are defined. (eg, how do you define a meter to a person who has never seen the length of a meter, as opposed to defining one foot, which is roughly one foot.)

Where metric makes more sense than imperial is the simple use of predictible scales when increasing or decreasing numbers used in measurements.

1kg = 1000 grams
1l = 1000 ml
1l weighs as much as 1kg
100 cm is a meter
1000 meter is a kilometer

I am 181 centimeters tall, 1.81 meters, or even 0.0018 km - as opposed to I am 5 feet and 11.26 inches (or is it 5.94 feet?) or 71.26 inches.

No person unfamiliar with the imperial system would be able to tell you what a mile is in inches, or even feet if they're particularly slow on calculations.

Having said that, whatever you're used to is undoubtedly what makes the most sense to you, as the issue surrounding this discussion is perspective. You grow up with imperial and it makes sense, much like your native language. Strange 'languages' have a different set of logical rules that may or may not make sense to you. It's probably a lot harder to get used to the imperial system if you grew up with the metric system than vice versa though, although that's pure speculation. The metric system just seems to have a more structured 'grammar' (gotta stick to the language theme here :P)

I agree 100%. Clearly the Imperial system doesn't scale as well, (or as clearly maybe), as the Metric system in the way you indicate. But patently it didn't prevent any of the British, (and in some cases other), Scientists and Engineers making the great contributions that some of them did to the world.

Personally, I grew up with the Metric system and whilst I feel comfortable with Imperial for "every day" measures, (such as a persons height/weight, room measurements etc), I would get "lost" very quickly trying to use it to make even relatively simple physics calculations for example. But that is almost certainly due to having essentially being educated solely in SI units.

My point was purely to contest the assertion that one system is intrinsically less "arbitary" than the other.

this thread has gone miles (or km if you prefer) off topic.

LFS forum, where off-topic masters like to hang..

The whole point of conversation is to end up talking about something completely different.

Quote from gezmoor :

Hmm.. Imperial is arbitary and Metric isn't??

Don't know.. when you look at exactly how SI measures are defined, it seems just as arbitary as Imperial to me

SI unit definitions, (not many nice round numbers to be seen):

http://www.bipm.org/en/si/base_units/

[...]

So one foot now is exactly the same that it was in the middle ages?

Why have you not taken the time to read up on how metres and kilograms were originally defined (which ironically is just a click away from the very site you linked to) instead of just throwing the (to remove any uncertainties) amended definitions into the discussion?

Quote from BlueFlame :

The whole point of conversation is to end up talking about something completely different.

wrong.
A conversation is communication between multiple people. It is a social skill that is not difficult for most individuals. Conversations are the ideal form of communication in some respects, since they allow people with different views on a topic to learn from each other.