/o/ - Auto » Thread #13754355

[109 / 7 / ?]

1MiB, 1936x1288, 2008-04-15_Hand_brake_1.jpg

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 08:00:43 No.13754355 View Reply Report Delete

>using GF's car

>used to pressing the handbrake button while pulling it since I hate that loud rip sound

>she jumps up screaming "you're fucking up my handbrake! you're supposed to NOT push the button when pulling it

I know you usually only push when releasing the brake but does it actually DAMAGE it when you push that button when pulling? I pull it just as much like when not pushing that button so I don't know where exactly there's supposed to be a problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 12:58:15 No.13755485 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755546 >>13755629

>>13755442
>Do you even understand physics?
>I'm not talking about overturning, so CoG height is not that important here.
Oh the fucking ironing.
Anyways I just spoonfed you a step by step guide where you can mathematically prove to yourself that I'm right and you're wrong. I don't see what else I can do.
>>13755447
What is YOUR point? The question was the "teoretical" max. Are you backpedaling because you realized you're wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:08:56 No.13755534 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755546 >>13756060

>>13755201
>>13755442

Wikipedia

"Rubber in contact with other surfaces can yield friction coefficients from 1 to 2. Occasionally it is maintained that µ is always < 1, but this is not true. While in most relevant applications µ < 1, a value above 1 merely implies that the force required to slide an object along the surface is greater than the normal force of the surface on the object. For example, silicone rubber or acrylic rubber-coated surfaces have a coefficient of friction that can be substantially larger than 1."

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:12:38 No.13755546 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755581 >>13755589

>>13755485
I was talking about available traction, witch is barely mentioned in that guide.
>>13755534
Assuming coefficient of traction equal 2 max slope is about 63 degrees, far from almost 90 claimed in >>13755085

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:16:22 No.13755557 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Try double clutching it.

>omg!! why are you revving it so high?!?!?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:22:26 No.13755581 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755635

>>13755546
>witch is barely mentioned in that guide.
The formula for tractive effort is right there. It is "barely mentioned" because it's so simple.
At this point it's obvious that you simply can't do basic trig because you slept in high-school and instead try to understand physics with intuition. That's not how it works. You can't argue with math.
>max slope is about 63 degrees, far from almost 90
I will refer you to a previous post
>What is YOUR point? The question was the "teoretical" max. Are you backpedaling because you realized you're wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:24:59 No.13755589 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755651

>>13755546

True. I wasn't trying to imply 90 isn't retarded, just that 45 isn't necessarily an upper limit due to available friction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:34:34 No.13755629 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755693

>>13755485
So a car with a centre of gravity of a millimetre is part of your theory. Nice theory. Even with a millimetre it's not even close to 89.999°.
Am I getting baited here or what.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:35:52 No.13755635 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755662 >>13755693

>>13755581
Have you used that formula for traction?

theoretical maximum with infinite traction is riding on ceiling, but what's the point of this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:38:13 No.13755651 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13755589
I never really looked at tracion coeficient, just assumed that it around 1 for tires and asphalt.
Thanks for info.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:41:21 No.13755662 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755693

>>13755635
went little overboard with that ceiling... Still in my theory you have limited traction, so slopes over 63 degrees (for traction coefficient equal 2) is no go.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:47:55 No.13755693 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755719 >>13755723 >>13755901

>>13755629
1. Thank you for admitting that you were wrong about 45 being the theoretical max
2. It's not "my theory" it's century old equations they teach you in high-school physics in most countries.
>>13755635
No because at or above 90 degrees the traction coefficient is multiplied by 0
>>13755662
1. You don't have a "theory". You have some weird shit someone who can't even math made up wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory.
2. Why would you even bother making something up yourself when I already posted the correct equations used by everyone.
3. Again. What is YOUR point? The question was the "teoretical" max. Are you backpedaling because you realized you're wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:55:36 No.13755719 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755723 >>13755731

>>13755693
My point is theoretical maximum slope car can launch from assuming limited traction (coefficient of traction), that's it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:56:56 No.13755723 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13755719
>>13755693
Its 45 degrees for coefficient of traction equal 1
and 63 degrees for coefficient of traction equal 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:59:53 No.13755731 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755742 >>13755757

>>13755719
Yes, and a coeff of 999999999999 is still limited. You have grave difficulties understanding either how numbers work or what the word "theoretical" means

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:03:04 No.13755742 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755757 >>13755780

>>13755731
I assumed more realistic coefficient, wanted that theory be closer to reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:04:36 No.13755757 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755780

>>13755731
>>13755742
It's sometimes funny how people argue about something because they assumed something differently, but with proper communication they would agree on the spot...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:08:26 No.13755780 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755813

>>13755742
>I assumed more realistic coefficient
You have grave difficulties understanding what the word "theoretical" means

>wanted that theory be closer to reality.
That is not what "theory" means wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory.
Especially not in this case when the model can accommodate any number >0>infinity

>>13755757
They started arguing completely different points. Now they've backpedaled to where it seems it's just "miscommunication"

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:14:59 No.13755813 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755857 >>13755906

>>13755780
I assumed that maximum slope is depending on traction. (Theoretical because all other aspects are ignored)
He assumed rolling over with enough traction so it's not a problem.

Not communicating this assumptions is "miscommunication".
If he would state that he assumes enough traction, i would just point what I assumed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:24:39 No.13755857 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755906

>>13755813
>I assumed that maximum slope is depending on traction.
I don't know where you entered, but it started with >>13754965 and >>13755442. Both of those are completely wrong and the posters have abandoned the statements, there's no miscommunication. But of course they can't simply admit they're wrong so instead they try to change what was being talked about.

>He assumed rolling over with enough traction
Nobody did that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:32:56 No.13755899 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13754409
this tbh fam

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:33:40 No.13755901 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755954

>>13755693
>1. Thank you for admitting that you were wrong about 45 being the theoretical max
still wasn't me retard
>2. It's not "my theory" it's century old equations they teach you in high-school physics in most countries.
these formulas never said that cars could launch at 89.99... slopes. Might aswell reinvent Quantummechanics and start with "let's take these formula's but assume h was 0". You're full of shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:34:53 No.13755906 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755954

>>13755857
That>>13755813 and >>13754965 and >>13755442 are all posts made by me.
And I assumed that maximum slope is result of available traction. And I still think that it's correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:35:33 No.13755914 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755923

>ITT everyone is butt mad about math.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:37:57 No.13755923 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13755914
It's funny how it all started because of some bicht mad about riding handbrake :D

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:43:59 No.13755954 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13755992 >>13756017

>>13755901
>these formulas never said that cars could launch at 89.99
Again, plug in numbers and see for yourself that they can.

>>13755906
>I assumed that maximum slope is result of available traction
It is. But you obviously have no clue how traction works then. And it's definitely not a miscommunication since if your rambling about 45 degrees was true then traction coefficients or rolling over or whatever you're trying to introduce now doesn't matter. It's an anonymous image board. I don't see why you can't just accept that you were wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:52:48 No.13755992 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13756017 >>13756060

>>13755954
So explain to me how traction works? Maybe I think about some other term I don't know in english...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 14:56:51 No.13756017 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13755954
>>13755992
Or just explain how I was wrong. I'm ready to accept defeat, just point me were I made mistake.

Still would like to learn what traction is, so if you would explain this too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 15:07:04 No.13756060 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13756091

>>13755992
>So explain to me how traction works?
>Still would like to learn what traction is
wikipedia.org/wiki/Traction_(engineering)
>Maybe I think about some other term I don't know in english
Doesn't matter what terms were used. >>13755442 Tries to explain how launching at >45 is simply logically impossible. And he's wrong.
>I'm ready to accept defeat
You indirectly have since you stopped talking about 45 degrees and tried to talk about other stuff instead
>just point me were I made mistake.
someone else already did >>13755534

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 15:11:32 No.13756091 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13756138

>>13756060
I accepted that coefficient of traction can be 2, instead of 1. After that I used 63 degrees.

I said that 45 degrees is maximum for traction coefficient equal 1. If it is incorrect, please point were.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 15:18:45 No.13756138 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13756159

>>13756091
>I accepted that coefficient of traction can be 2, instead of 1
It can be any number >0>infinity. and thus max slope can be any number 0>90
>I said that 45 degrees is maximum for traction coefficient equal 1
Which is retarded since there's no reason to pick 1 specifically. Especially when talking about cars with rubber tires. I guess you simply thought that 1 was the highest possible coefficient. And why you stopped at 2 later on is equally weird

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 15:21:34 No.13756159 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13756180

>>13756138
So what coefficient I should choose for rubber tires and asphalt?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 15:25:21 No.13756180 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13756295

>>13756159
any number >0>infinity since the key word was "Teoreticaly" all along.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 15:43:30 No.13756295 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13756410

>>13756180
Yeah... whatever...
Still think that my values are correct unless you prove me that traction coefficient of 1 or 2 is unrealistic (I'm more inclined towards 1 for normal everyday cars).

heartbreaker !GOts63novA

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pine.jpg, 454KiB, 1024x768

heartbreaker !GOts63novA Thu 29 Oct 2015 15:48:24 No.13756327 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13758287

>>13754755
I lived on Pine St in San Fran for years, DD'd a manual, parallel parked on my street 4 times a day, and never once touched my parking brake until I was parked with my tires curbed. There's no reason to use it if you know how to drive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 16:00:58 No.13756410 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13756295
>traction coefficient of 1 or 2 is unrealistic
It's not. And I have never said so. You thought 45 was the theoretical max because you thought 1 was the theoretical maximum TC.
Quoting from above
>You have grave difficulties understanding what the word "theoretical" means
>But of course they can't simply admit they're wrong so instead they try to change what was being talked about.

Brosifine !!fPOjsJng8Fk

Brosifine !!fPOjsJng8Fk Thu 29 Oct 2015 16:03:51 No.13756429 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13757265

>>13754517
You're just an inexperienced driver.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 17:49:05 No.13757122 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13754355
Your GF is a fucking normie OP, I cringe at people who wear down their handbrake rachet.

>inb4 proper handbrake technique elitist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 17:50:31 No.13757133 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13754398
>cant hillstart without handbrake
Wow faggot l2drive

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 17:57:34 No.13757174 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13757261

>>13754979
Europeans are shit. Have fun in your 1.2 litre with $2000 dollars in taxes a year

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:12:49 No.13757261 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13757299 >>13758217 >>13758241

>>13757174
>hurr uro cars are week
Daily reminder americans got so utterly destroyed in all motorsports that they had to make up their own.
Daily reminder that the fastest car money can buy has always been european.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:13:30 No.13757265 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13756429
>bmw is cheaper than toyota

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:16:33 No.13757283 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13754379
>>13754355
Typical of women to oppress others with their ignorance.

Of course, if she doesn't implicitly trust you enough to accept that the way you operate a motor vehicle is always correct, you must not be much of a man.

Leave her and find yourself, boy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:18:26 No.13757299 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>13757325

>>13757261
the japs dont do so well in many motorsports too. just look at F1
how many jap drivers?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 18:23:21 No.13757325 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13757299
>drivers
We were talking about cars m8. Andretti is italian anyways.
Anyways Nissan is doing phenomenal in GT classes. Mazda won le mans in 91. Subaru dominated rally for a while....

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 20:51:28 No.13758217 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13757261
Daily reminder that you still drive a 1.2 liter slow-mobile.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 20:53:52 No.13758230 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>tfw I drive manual and handbrake is broken

I've gotten used to not needing it. It is sort of annoying not being able to keep my car running while not in the drivers seat on a surface thats not perfectly flat though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 20:55:37 No.13758241 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13757261
>he cried out while he was climbing onto the bus

Caribfag !!2EGFk2yYkNj

Caribfag !!2EGFk2yYkNj Thu 29 Oct 2015 20:58:52 No.13758256 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13754387

>flat ground

Where is this, flat ground, you speak of?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 20:59:34 No.13758270 Report Delete

Quoted By:

your gf doesnt know shit just like 99% of other people who own cars.

but it's her car. and when you use other peoples things you use them how they tell you to rather than arguing about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 21:01:57 No.13758287 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>13756327
There's no reason to not use it, though.

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches