Drifting, hellaflush, slammed, tire stretch blog/bash thread.

[sofaking]

Vex, if you can't do the math just admit it. I don't care if you can't, I can admit I can't. But pretending you're more educated than you are doesn't help your argument. Prove something instead of attempting to pull apart my paragraphs line by line in an attempt to change my point. Everyone else can read what I'm saying. I'm not arguing emotion, I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm merely saying that you can either 1) Prove your point, or 2) admit you're working in theory. Just because scientific concepts (valid and all) are backing your premise, it doesn't mean that it's not theory. You're dealing with concepts not application, that's theory. What I have a problem with isn't your opinion, it's the fact that you're stating your opinion is some sort of fact. Though you yourself aren't proving it in anything other than theory without application.

@RotorDad
Even the letter from the manufacturer uses the word "could". Because he doesn't have the math to prove. I've got no argument with the letter, even the letter doesn't state as a certainty what's going to happen.

@Mazdabater
That's really your argument? After everyone is arguing intelligently from thier perspective you thought you would add that someone else's opinion makes them an idiot? Classy. As for the pictures that sucks, you can see at a glance how the car hit he was probably drifting. Think the insurance company covers you drifting on the streets?

[vex]

Originally Posted by sofaking

Vex, if you can't do the math just admit it.

The truth of the matter is I'm not going to waste my time and vacation doing the math when you admit the following

I don't care if you can't, I can admit I can't.

Do you see the issue? What's the point in doing something when you don't understand it from the get go? I mean, I don't sit down and work with viscoelastic materials for a living, I don't work with aluminum impregnated 'tire rubber' and run simulation after simulation of stress and strain in FEA for both pressure and temperature variations. Perhaps you should look at some of my posts before pretending you know the first thing about what I can and can not do. I mean, solid rocket motors have no bearing on anything engineering related... oh wait.

Let me put it another way; why should I waste 1-4 hours of my life to prove something to you that you would not believe or understand in the first place.
Let alone do it pro bono?

But pretending you're more educated than you are doesn't help your argument.

You're right. Good thing I'm not pretending. Material Science, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Kinematics, Thin wall structures are just a small portion of my interests and occupation. Do you really want me to teach you the very basics so you can even hope to understand the math behind non-linear material deformation and stress levels? How about I just hand you a book for you to read so you understand the basics.

Prove something instead of attempting to pull apart my paragraphs line by line in an attempt to change my point.

You change you're own points, and have yet to address the issues I've raised. I've already given you enough information to understand the science on a basic level. Which according to your previous posts show that you have yet to even attempt to understand but attempt to dismiss Material Science as theory (which you still have yet to concede).

Everyone else can read what I'm saying. I'm not arguing emotion, I'm not trying to attack anyone.

Yeah, but not everyone is able to cut through your BS as effectively as me and waste my time in responding to you (remember you said I belittle you in one of your first posts, this is what belittling from me feels like and I have a large resivour to pull from if you want to keep going).

I'm merely saying that you can either 1) Prove your point, or 2) admit you're working in theory.

Unfortunately I have justified my point using material science (which contrary to your made up definition is not theory).

Just because scientific concepts (valid and all) are backing your premise, it doesn't mean that it's not theory.

Then you have no idea what theory and science is and how they work together. Let me put it this way: Science is the application of laws and mathematics to model and derive real world outcomes from basic knowledge. Theory is used to test via the scientific method. For instance: Material science allows you to design, build, and test various materials and their behavior under duress. From the wiki article previously posted:

Materials science is an interdisciplinary field applying the properties of matter to various areas of science and engineering. This scientific field investigates the relationship between the structure of materials at atomic or molecular scales and their macroscopic properties. It incorporates elements of applied physics and chemistry.

You're dealing with concepts not application, that's theory.

No. Sorry. It's not.

What I have a problem with isn't your opinion, it's the fact that you're stating your opinion is some sort of fact. Though you yourself aren't proving it in anything other than theory without application.

As has already been shown. The science I've stated is fact. Whether YOU choose to believe it is of little consequence to me. You have as of yet, failed to address any of the numerous points I've brought up. It also appears to me that you fail to understand the basics of this science on a fundamental level. Which leads me all the way back to this point: If you don't understand how the tire is deforming or being stressed, what are you doing stretching the tire in the first place.

In an effort to help YOU better understand the science behind the deformation of the tire. Let's start even more basic than material science. What forces are acting on a tire (entire wheel assembly rim-tire combo mounted on a running car--We'll keep it simple. 2D only for right now)?