Soop Dogg

*tsk* Come on Ian - answer the fonty question properly!

Did I miss it? Where's the pics?

The NEW Corvette? I heard they put it up against the Z06 which has now been out for 3 years. I'll wait to see how it does against the new ZR1 next year. Hopefully they'll do a test where they're not just going in a straight line too - that's a pretty useless test TBH. Not keen on the look of the GTR. I can appreciate how technically advanced it is, and all the fantastic engineering that has gone into it. But for some reason it really doesn't do anything for me, I'm afraid. Liked the R34, but not this one.

Damn! I'm in Monte Carlo this weekend! Oh well - there's always Sky+

Agree aboslutely, RedM - in fact as you'll see, I was the one defending the OP's pics as being very fine indeed. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought when you quoted me and then said that you must have been directing this at the person quoted in your post (me) and saying that I was referring to you.... Silly me! I'll try to keep up to speed and pay more attention in future.

Yeah - she went to get some stock for work and said she saw you on the road. We were at PC World (just opposite where this accident happened) later in the day getting some bits and pieces.

Over sensitive? How do you work that out when the comments I referred to were about someone elses photgraphs, not mine??? I wasn't even referring to any one person in particular TBH. As the chap who took the original pics agreed, those pics weren't of the best quality, but there was at least one person who criticised the second set of (very nice) pics. This isn't a photography forum, but I thought the original pics showed two very different sets of headlights. They only needed looking at for a little more than a couple of seconds to see the difference. God knows, we've seen much, much worse pics on here in the past! There just seemed to be a general 'vibe' from a handful of people slagging off a newbie for nothing more than the quality of his photgraphy. Not exactly welcoming, really. As for melodrama and 'over sensitive', you're the one who seems to be trying to present your argument as though it was in a court of law. And as you appear to have come to the conclusion that I was directing my comments at you personally, then can I just point out that it perhaps wasn't me who was being over sensitive? TBH, I can barely remember ever hearing of you before, so don't go thinking I take that much notice of you, oh Majestic One.

Great looking pics there mate. Ignore the prats putting down what you've done, I can't understand their reasoning. It's a good way to put off potential new members. Anyway, the car looks great and the pics show you know what you are doing with a camera. Out of interest - what F-Stop does that lens go down to? The last shot looks like a very low number to me. (For me, that's the one that gave the game away that you weren't using a kit lens.)

I think you've just earned the award for the most sensible noob on here in the last couple of years!! Good on ya mate. Keep that attitude and you'll stay shiney side up! I just wish I could sell my car to someone like yourself - I worry that some muppet will buy her and bend her within the first couple of weeks.

Not us. There's quite a lot of black Supes around Norwich nowadays. Hope it wasn't Angie's old car which is now owned by Bluecoup. I'd have thought that John might have recognised the plates if it was that one though as he's pretty sharp at that sort of thing. It has a 'TAZ' number on it. Strangely though, we were on that road today at about lunchtime - in the Supe - first weekend we've had the car off the driveway this year!

You smooth talking barsteward. So did you get her number??

Looks good mate. (And I thought it was obvious what the difference was in the pics.)

Reminds me of a female colleague I worked with in the early 90's who announced to everyone that she'd just bought a Renault CL 10

Reeves Callaway does some bonkers quick cars. I remember in the 80's he did the Corvette Sledgehammer just to prove he could tune a 5.7 litre V8 to do over 250mph. In the end it very nearly hit 255mph! (That's Veyron territory back in '88)

Make a complaint to the Police for attempting to obtain money by Criminal Deception. Might have a bit of a job to prove which person did it, but it'll certainly rattle their cage a bit.

We're in Norwich and it woke us up! Everything rattled and the windows creaked. People were out in the street asking WTF was that?? (nervous)Lol

Those last two pics are my car....I've still not managed to bring myself to sell it - despite having kind of half-heartedly put it up for sale twice now! Maybe this year I'll manage to part with it. (I've actually pretty much given it to Angie now anyway, so maybe she should be the one saying this!) Someone mentioned the front bumper - yes, as miko_supra pointed out it's a Stillen. The bonus with this bumper is that it's polyeurethane, so it's about as deformable as the stock bumper.

How so?

For all vehicle filming equipment, try HERE. Click on 'Shop' and then 'Product Overview'. (I'd use a direct link but it uses your session id and the link wouldn't work anyway.)

That's some great advice right there! And while you're at it, don't worry about any of your other legal stuff like insurance or driving license either, eh? Apparently the average fine for no insurance is only a couple of hundred quid - so it makes sense not to get any. Glad you're doing the responsible thing, Fifty. Hope the Supe gets through it's MOT without any probs.

Pdwdj099 Ia[08 16.00] Pdwdj012 Ia[08 16.00] Pdmdc Ia[09 16.00] Pdml0 Ia[09 16.00] Pdmdn Ia[09 16.00]

Get rid. And give the poster some infraction points for wasting server resource

Yeah - and that matters! The original 16" wheels on the JDM Supra were just gorgeous, weren't they? Whoever would want to change from those...

I'm sorry mate - a 'THreadmill' is (and I'm guessing here) probably something to do with needlework. (which certainly isn't my area of expertise - especially not on rollerskates.) I do wish you'd stay on topic and not try to relate everything to whatever strange hobbies you might have....

1. I'm glad that's your last post on the topic because you're starting to rant. 2. I studied for 3 years in the Royal Air Force to get my qualifications in Electronics & Aerospace Engineering. Only part of this is even relevant here, because it's such basic physics that the aircraft CAN and WILL move forward. (Thus the wings will be able to generate the lift required for take-off) I'm not talking as one of your people whose "Aircraft experience is limited to Holidays to Spain", so let's get past that, shall we? When you do your tests on engines, the point there is that they're strapped down and so prevented from moving forward. All the energy developed by the engine is dissipated into the rig holding it down. Like I said before, if the conveyor was going the wrong way - even at a million mph, this would only cause the wheels to spin the wrong way. (Albeit, incredibly fast) The engine wouldn't have to produce the thrust required to do 1 million mph PLUS its' take-off speed to be able to take of - it'd still go forward as normal and the wheels would simply turn backwards at a speed of 1million mph MINUS the take-off speed at the point of take-off. Because the wheels are not actually connected in any way to the propulsion mechanism of the aircraft, this means the aircraft speed is independant of the speed that the wheels are turning. Like I explained in post #135, the aircraft will take off with the wheels stationary if the conveyor is going the same direction as the aircraft at the take-off speed. When we run, we have to push against the ground to move forward, i.e. in your treadmill argument, the thing that we push against is moving. That goes for a car too. But the aircraft is pushing against air - and that's not moving at all. And by the way - you're the first propulsion engineer (if you're actuially an engineer and not a fitter) that I've heard try to equate their experience to having expertise in the field of aeronautics. (FFS...)