Jump to content




Photo

KMR - evolution or revolution?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 04 February 2016 - 05:52 PM

If a 5:1 gear is too steep and 3:1 is to tall the average fellow tries 4:1 next. Which if not on the money will again be to tall or too steep. Pick one then find the gear between them and so on and so forth until you find your sweet spot. I think as long as I've played with slots this has been pretty bread and butter. Cut and try. Trail and error. Reward or reject.
 
What do you do though when the method breaks down? You can't find that sweet spot with nothing but gear. Tire is normally next. Change in height effects the ratio's you can't reach with gear. It is also the introduction to a second variable. You haven't just changed the ratio. The change in tire height changes about a half dozen other items as well. Side wall stiffness and guide attack angle and ride height to name a few. Sometimes it's a non event. Sometimes it rocks your world.
 
When I started drag slots I started with a basic premise. F = M/A. Make it more powerful or make it lighter. This method works just like the first paragraph. Until it behaves like the second paragraph  and you open up Pandora's can of worms. Nearly everyone starts here.
 
At the end of the Yellow Corvette Roadster project I had no idea that I was teetering on the brink of a totally new issue. That fine balance between weight and stiffness. It beat a tattoo on me and did so for some years. I make it lighter and it gets weaker and unable to function properly thus slows down. I make it stiffer and it gets heavier and slows down. The old "rock and a hard place".
 
A guys first thought is like the first thoughts of everyone that preceded you. Use lighter parts. Swap out those aluminum hubs for magnesium. Trade that steel axle for Titanium. And that works for a while until you run out of lighter parts and have spent a kings ransom.
 
My next step was to build smaller cars. The Yellow Corvette being the smallest of the G-9 chassis cars. Magnesium and titanium abounded. Thin wall tubing stuffed with carbon fiber. Machined tube axles cut down to vapor between bearings. Hand pulled thin wall bodies. Hollow body pins. Surface ground motor and bridge plates. The Corvette was a 4-1/2" guide lead car that tipped in 50 grams with a Euro motor!! That car would go 40 grams with a strap. But at that point where the 25 turn motor was tuned to a razors edge a full 100 watts hotter than the then to be born Raptor 25 it was splitting hairs of a frog for balance. I did not know that then.
 
The only things faster than my Vette were Funny Cars at over a inch gain in guide lead length and 15 grams heavier with UO-13D motors loaded. After building a longer wheelbase KMR G-9 chassis I dropped a Koford 63 Quad Neo in it and was handed back the most evil handling drag car I had ever seen. That much power. That much glue. That limp a car and I was burning braid like candles at a George Burns birthday party.
 
Sometimes the problem isn't knowing what to do but more how to do it. The car needed to be stiffer and it needed to do so with no or little additional weight. That friends is a geometry problem. Many were tried on many different platforms from more Funny Cars to hard body Unlimited Outlaws. Broad sweeps with big hammers. Flailing away at the wind. Looking for a direction. Even the wrong direction would send me back to the right one eventually.
 
The below photo is an array of a few select chassis that have lead to the current Mule test bed. That back and forth between the markers thinking I started with. But with a twist. The second car down was a total revelation when it hit the track. I swapped tube size and length for triangles and ovals to get the same weight in a car that was quite a bit lighter than the scale car and the added plus of sidewinder drive. It drove like grandmothers Old's and moved like a JATO bottle on a Roswell rocket sled....until it blew over. None the less it pointed in a direction I could understand and better yet, duplicate with enhancements.
 
Here's the thing about the new car. I didn't use light weight parts other than the axle tube I already had. This is an all metal car. Brass wings and EDM steel bridge work. Lot's of stainless wire. It's as light as the first Funny cars that failed with who knows how much mass yet to be shed. Yet it uses the best features of the six or eight cars it is a composite of. Every car that has passed this shop has had something to do with this projects goals. New PERSONAL best.

DSCF3002.JPG
Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.




#2 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 05 February 2016 - 03:25 PM

In retrospect, if the Neo magnet thing would have pasted slot cars over not one bit of this would have happened. Either I would have been put off by the silly prices asked for Cobalt magnets, hence no issue OR I would have followed the herd via the strap can route for which all this silliness of chassis has long since been sorted out. It is in fact, the Neo magnets and the rush to huge flux fields that has put so much torque into known winds that has pushed the standard Funny Car chassis platforms over the brink of balance much like the next step in power did to the Roadster. Just one more straw on the camels back and...snap!!

 

It was the Band-Aids used that lead to as much of this as anything. Grip, believed to be the major issue by most and tires got wider and tracks got "Laffy-Taffy" sticky. Talk about Rocks and Hard Places. A standard chassis getting about 50% more torque driven into a wheel/glue combination that was putting up maybe 100% more bite into the car. Might as well clamp the nose of the chassis into a vise and turn the axle with a pipe wrench. EVERYTHING between the axle and the vise jaws is begging from mercy and bending/loading in ways the design was never able to accept.

 

When this type of power made it to Street Outlaw model car based Hard Body racing current loading hit the roof. No longer merely spiking current to get a 55 gram car under way is was several feet of peak current attempts at 100 gram plus mountain moving. No longer were we putting just a pipe wrench to work....we were hitting the wrench with an eight pound hammer as fast as we could. Like ringing the bell a the Fair for a Teddy Bear.

 

Play the launch in slow motion in your minds eye and you see what looks like cracking a bull whip. The guide plate and braid the business end of the whip. Put a few hundred amps of current into a contact and break that contact under load. WELD! But long before that happens you hear "snick". The popping noise dad use to make with the belt. One more gram of torque, one more amp of current and FLASH. Toasted braid.

 

I tired for years to solve the issue by "fine tuning" the grip. One in fifty it worked. Guys better than I had better success but nothing that could be banked on. Fact is, if those fellas would have actually got to a point that the car ran bracket like month over month I would have never looked anywhere but at my technique.


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#3 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 09 February 2016 - 04:02 PM

Logic: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge (Merriam-Webster) Sounds complicated. It isn’t.

 

Logical argument. Now that’s complicated. Wikipedia list over 120 impediments to sound logical argument that can be found at the link below. It’s a funny read for the most part.

 

https://en.wikipedia...st_of_fallacies

 

I find it humorous; the fact that given any one topic of discussion (thread) and this list in hand, it’s hard not to see the lengths with which we try so desperately to remain ignorant. Or perhaps it is that we struggle with the idea of letting others note when we are wrong.

 

Straw Man fallacy – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.

Red Herrings– argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument.

  • Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
    • Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
    • Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.

Might I opine if one prints off this list and has it in hand as one reads replies to threads one might be amazed at the amount of fallacy promoted as fact or even truth.

My personal favorite:

 

Anecdotal fallacy – using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence.

Very effective if combine with ‘Appeal to accomplishment’.

 

Try this one: Knowledge doesn't mean Understanding, and the Truth is the Truth, no matter what you think of it...........

 

How many errors in logic and rhetoric does this violate? (mark my words, this will be seen as a personal attack when the only thing in question is the statements validity as an argument)

 

Before this became a signature it was offered ‘ad hominem’ as proof that to whom it replied had neither understanding nor a grasp of truth but acknowledging a certain common familiarity with knowledge itself.

 

Questions: 1.) Is it indeed proof. Is the statement reflecting sound logic?

 

2.) Who suffered? The one to whom it was directed OR those who accepted it as valid testimony of truth and fact.

 

Perhaps a less volatile example more to this post point:

 

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”.  An old standard no one should find offensive.

 

Combine with an ‘Appeal to Accomplishment’ we have what is in essences the centerfold of current and classical exercise of the slot car hobby.

Are we confused about the purpose of a hobby?

 

KMR projects rarely “follow the leader”. Exceptions certainly exist when I question my understanding of the Status Quo. Unless I do question there is little need to imitate what is so apparently not effectively demonstrating solutions to the current crop of relevant questions.

 

If I were building a Cobalt based strap can AA/FC then the mimic of current chassis technology would be inviting perhaps in closing the distance between my program and that of the “front runners”. The observation however is ever counter to that conclusion. The use of AA/FC chassis technology hasn’t produced anything conclusive in the advancement of the best of  Neo/FC. Not to me. Not by anyone else. So what is it that I should follow?

If you were to ask what the quickest Unlimited pass of record is the likely answer might be .401. Is it? In closed testing, yes. As a record, a recognized official “race-able” record is that still the case?  

 

What is the quickest pass by an Unlimited car produced during qualifying for or during a sanctioned event and backed up per a nationally recognized organizing committees rule of standard? Tell ya what. I don’t know either but is certainly isn’t .401 or .402. It isn’t in the teens and I doubt it to be in the 20’s. Not that a single pass hasn’t occurred. I would opine a 30 something under stipulated rule.

 

Point is, why copy irrelevance? Neo/FC is no quicker than AA/FC as far as I can tell in its ability to provide either a record or the consistency to generate one. It is more powerful. It is more massive. To that point it generates its own unique set of questions but it has not been proven more effective, only more economical.

 

This whole project is a walkabout based on a premise that at this point in pure back of the envelope hypothesis. Hardly subject to judgments lacking otherwise proof of leadership.

I’m not impressed with a blind hog finding a turnip. I’m impressed with the hog whose a successful turnip farmer. I don’t know one. So…experiment it is.

 


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#4 Dennis David

Dennis David

    Posting Leader

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,980 posts
  • Joined: 05-April 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 10 February 2016 - 01:56 AM

I think you lost me after you introduced the second variable ...

Dennis David
    
curb-line2.jpg
 
gph_sm.jpg
   


#5 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 10 February 2016 - 11:25 AM

I think you lost me after you introduced the second variable ...

 

:) Thank you David  ​

 

I tossed normality under a buss then backed up over it. Repeatedly. Normality being the "middle of the mess". The mess knowing is in is its concept. That being; that it belongs to us. What we accept as knowledge, understanding, those things we base decisions on, hopefully with some wisdom attached are more often than not filled with fallacy, error, prejudice; lacking logic and reason or at least reasonable premise and sadly, good manners.

 

For instance we commonly accept the Anecdotal fallacy – using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence which is very effective when combine with ‘Appeal to accomplishment’. Let a god of the hobby say it so based on his anecdotal experience and for the masses opinion becomes a fact. One punishable by public humiliation if run afoul.

  •  Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

I offered opinion that such reverence is misplaced as is bore out in the facts. For instance belief that sub .410 times are the median and anyone capable of such median performance has it all figured out. The truth being, it’s as exception that even the “doer” can’t explain. If it could be it would indeed be fact and the median and not the upper sixth sigma. The .00001 performance in 99.9999 attempts.

 

That said I progressed to the premise that in that light those methods exercised to achieve those anomalies were not grounded in fact nor truth. Not that I had anything better to offer, just something different, maybe, and yet not all that different.

 

I had observed that an increase in stiffness in a sidewinder drag car of immense mass and prodigious power to be very effective in enhancing pass over pass consistency. Much more so than the more widely accepted concept in the effectiveness of chassis flexibility and the absolute requirement for body float. I did not observe this first in my own car but that of a competitor. To satisfy both my curiosity and my time line I copied the method the first outing. It worked and so I refined it a bit the following two which engendered the :

  •  Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.

I believe, in hind sight, my statement of “refinement” along with others personal side battles for accolades set off a fire storm that hindered the notion that the idea not only had merit, no matter who’s it was but that it could benefit from enhancement.

 

In this dragster I’ve removed the basic construct. That is, using a body as a stressed member to achieve stiffness and replaced it with a construct that is a basic part of the foundation.

 

The insanity of the conflict was bore out in the detail of the arguments base in the method used and not on the concept. That is, three point body mounts to relegate the body to a stressed member. While effective it is not causal. Stiffness is.

 

Stiff is the definition of this dragster. No, the method is not new. Not any newer than bridge building. Not any newer than its application to bird cage frames. Old hat in point of fact. No idea where it came from. Likely a copy of God’s work somewhere that some man observed then duplicated and patented.

 

Let me bottom line this.

 

I’m not saying flexibility and float is wrong. I’m not saying rock hard is right. I’m saying stiffness has NOT KEPT PACE WITH POWER and this projects attempt is to shed some light on that IF we can stay away from our normal fallible course.

 

It is intentional that the build is abstract in that it fits no acceptable normal definition of class or type to belay the inevitable comparisons that dilute progress. It happens when data leads form. Is that Evolution? Revolution?, Or something else.


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#6 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 12 February 2016 - 11:39 AM

Seems I was close in my calls for AA/FC-Neo/FC 'race' times. Got word the annual Georgia race last weekend saw a final where both cars hit .420's. 23 vs 28. Average times were still .430-.450 and cars just outside 5 "O" still made the field and making a round or two. I hear the quickest qualifier ran .408. Is that a record with back up or just quickest qualifying time? I have no idea. One or two teen passes were made during the day. Were those practice passes or were the part of the qualifying attempts? I was not told. It was the country's top talent on likely the quickest track in the nation currently. Speeds peaked in the 120's.

 

If I understood everything only Neo motors constructed around cobalt strap cans run in AA/FC. King "type" motors. Interesting.

 

Data can't get more current than that. So...the targets haven't really moved. Sub 10's are still outliers. Teens rare. 20's breathless final rounds and 30-40's quite competitive. Nothing new. Good!! :dash2:


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#7 Arne Saknussem

Arne Saknussem

    Race Leader

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 925 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Citizen of the World

Posted 12 February 2016 - 01:47 PM

KMR Kitten Milk Replacer is a complete nutrition source for orphaned, rejected, or nursing kittens that need a dietary supplement.  Also good for growing kittens and adult cats that are stressed and need a highly digestible protein source.

 

KMR may also be used to rehabilitate wildlife.  It simulates mothers' milk for Rabbits, Porcupines, and Bobcats.

 

http://www.petag.com


Pete Varlan

"A friend to many, a nightmare to many more."


#8 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 17 February 2016 - 07:22 AM

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is. Some say this is a quote of Yogi Berra others Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut. As humorous as this may sound it’s use to cast doubt on scientifically accepted knowns is not.  In essence it says that nothing is knowable.

 

http://www.gly.uga.e...22science7.html

 

Researching this piece I found that there is little agreement between otherwise “trusted” sources regarding definitions of common terms such as ‘natural law’, ‘hypothesis’, ‘theory’.

A quote from the above link an example of this idea:

 

Some people dismiss a given scientific idea with "That's just a theory". They're right - all science can provide is theories. However, those theories have proven quite useful to all of us. Most of us won't step off the top of a building because of the results predicted by Newton's theory of gravitation - and yet it's just a theory. NASA and other space agencies launch space craft to distant planets on the basis on Newton's theory of gravitation and Copernicus's theory of the heliocentric solar system - and yet they're just theories. It's instructive to remember that Copernicus was required by the authorities of his time to preface his work as just a series of "hypotheses", and not even as a "just a theory".

 

That same link also provides a clue:

 

fact - a truth known by actual experience or observation. The hardness of iron, the number of ribs in a squirrel's body, the existence of fossil trilobites, and the like are all facts.

    

Is it a fact that electrons orbit around atomic nuclei? Is it a fact that Brutus stabbed Julius Caesar? Is it a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow? None of us has observed any of these things - the first is an inference from a variety of different observations, the second is reported by Plutarch and other historians who lived close enough in time and space to the event that we trust their report, and the third is an inductive inference after repeated observations….

 

The reason for discrepancy lies in human paradigms. Don’t get excited the following is in example of different paradigms.

 

Theory says the earth will pass away, as will our sun, moon and all stars given enough time. Stars and complete solar systems have been observed passing away.

 

Ecclesiastes 1:4 New International Version

 

Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.

 

Viewed as a human who believes the human experience nothing is knowable other than that which can be directly observed and then ONLY for as long as the observer is observing it.

 

Viewed by one that believes in the a God source who created law, law is absolute and any degree in error is in the human understanding.

 

Even the most atheistic human view holds scientific theory as ABSOLUTE with NO KNOWN PROVEN EXCEPTIONS to that theory but holding the possibility of EXCEPTION YET TO BE PROVEN.

 

belief in exception to theory in the world of the slot car hobbyist is as common as dirt. Slot car people are smarter than the science that drives it. They find exceptions every time their test don’t provide the result THEIR UNDERSTANDING of theory. Laughable. It is never considered that THEIR UNDERSTANDING is flawed.

 

If you didn’t notice, even though there is a LARGE difference in the paradigms between the worlds of science and the world of theology the result is the same. Accepted Scientific Theories have yet to be found in exception....406


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#9 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 29 February 2016 - 12:54 AM

I watched a Smithsonian documentary on the construction of the Bentley Continental GT tonight.  Watching it I realized why there is such indifference in perfecting the art in knowledge of slot cars.

 

It isn’t that racers don’t want that level of refinement but it is simply not appreciated.  While the average slotter might indeed be able of perceive that  there is a difference between a Bentley and a Yugo the fact is, they wouldn’t treat them any differently. Especially if they don’t personally own it. It's just a car.

 

Certain ones might even go out of their way to snub such craftsmanship. Why? Could it be that at $200,00+ USD and out of the reach of the majority they are simply jealous? Perhaps. But what is the excuse when one is given to you FREE of charge? Worse! What if instead one could afford a Lamborghini at twice the cost and know you received half the refinement AND still remained blind?

 

The Taylor of Panama was indeed a fine tailor. (Movie reference) But being a tailor wasn’t why he toiled at his craft. There was another agenda. One of power and of fortune. Manipulation of the powerful and even the powerfully dangerous.  Poor fellow didn’t even notice the veneration he was given for the skill in his craft.

 

If you own a Lamborghini and can’t appreciate the Bentley that is a whole other sickness. Having given possibilities for both views of extreme I conclude only this; there is no interest in such pursuits. I don’t understand it Really I don’t but I do understand it is so. Have it your way. It was given freely. 462


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#10 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 07 March 2016 - 01:17 AM

Look at Aston Martin DB's from the mid 50's. The grill. The DB4's of the early 60's. Bonnet and fender lines. Look at the last two decades of Vanquish and Vantage and you can see the father in the sons. A visual connectivity that is the DNA of the mark shared by no other manufacture. This same distinction made in my last post concerning the Bentley that is a line nearly a hundred years old and still...not getting old.

 

​Contrast this with...Honda, Ford, Toyota, Buick, Nissan, Hyundai, Chevy, Dodge, Lexus, Infinity...need I go on? To tell them apart you need a book of badges directory. Use to be the bread boxy look. Then Jelly Beans. Now..."Large Mouth Bass" grills made of egg crates. Lexas is the ugliest. IMHO.

 

​I love my 2009 La Cross CXL but it was the last of a breed. I suppose a focus group decided that the Buick needed to appeal more to the 19 to 49 demographic. The Chrysler 200 looking Cascada. Revamping the Regal's ride to that of a gymkhana Camaro. What the heck is the Verano suppose to be? It isn't anything Buick was founded on.   

 

Of course this focus group is made up of 25 top 39 year olds who failed to realize the rebranding the Buick to this demographic placed the companies possible sales in the hands of the smallest group by age and number of drivers with the least amount of income. Seriously? Over 50 is the largest single age bracket and in control of over 75% of the nations wealth. Ever hear of AARP? Baby boomers? Got a decade to go yet kids.

 

​I can't afford a Bentley or an Aston Martin but "shape and integrity cost nothing". I like Honda's. Had a bunch of them but it's a company in search of itself. Just like all it's followers. Well...okay...I can't tell who the alpha dog is....can you? It's going to take more than a few Buick "bullet holes" in a fender to convince me it's a Buick. I had my Mustangs and my Corvettes. It's luxury time. Comfort time. I don't need and don't want a car that is different only in it's badge.

 

 


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#11 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 07 March 2016 - 11:55 AM

Wholesale change or refinement? Eight post to this thread and that is the base question that ties them together.  Is your program based on wholesale change or on refinement? Is your platform one of your thoughtful choosing or one you’ve accepted from trolls. Do you have a platform? A recipe? A process? A direction? A goal? A method?

 

Artful rhetoric and colorful marketing can convince you of almost anything. Science though, only of one thing when in context.

I repeat, when in context. Out of context is the tool of trolls.

 

https://www.uni-graz.../twoandtwo.html

 

A lovely insight into 2 + 2 = 5 when things get out of context. Please note the list of names involved. Experts in their fields. God’s if you will and taken out of context.

 

There is a video on this topic in YouTube showing such a “proof”.

 

 

About half way down the comments page is this astute comment:

 

This doesn't explain 2+2=5 at all, it's just you presenting facts in numbers and people believing you because they can't comprehend the truth behind those facts.

 

His grammar aside his point is soundly made. The truth of the lie was in the manipulation of order and improper canceling. His proof was 90% true as is any good lie so my father tells me. Would you believe it if it were not?

 

To be believed a thing has to sound right, smell right, look right, taste right and come from a source where there has never been an inkling of falsehood. No reason to doubt. The RING of truth must me sensed.

 

Romans 3 : 4 “…. Let God be true, and every man be found a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

 

There is one source of truth on ANY subject. He did not give us a book on slot cars but he did give us men with insights into the laws that govern them. He’s generous like that.

 

I would be one of “every man” and as such I’m positive I’ve given an inkling for doubt. Romans makes a solid note that humans can be found true IF they lean on God’s laws and not personal understanding.

 

What that means to me is the closer I adhere to “A best understanding” of the physical universe and the laws the govern it the closer my results will reflect those laws. The better my results. Meaning I will believe Newton, Joule, Watt…..over “25 years of podium winning, record holding, factory backed racer results” every time. I will also gravitate toward those in this hobby whose views and works mirror that sentiment. Does that sound contradictory? I don’t think so but it sure shrinks the information pool to a manageable number. No one CAN be perfect but it’s no reason not to try.

 

So…Wholesale troll exchange OR Carefully considered refinement based on “a best understanding” of Physical Law? 559

 


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#12 CoastalAngler1

CoastalAngler1

    Outlaw Racer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,233 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 14
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Quit Wishin Go Fishin

Posted 07 March 2016 - 07:03 PM

If someone with 25 years podium experience tells you a tip, how do you know to believe them?


  • Marty N likes this

Charlie McCullough

Charlie's Speed Shop

JK Hawk Horsepower Specialist

Bartos Chassis  CHR Cars

Outisight Bodies

Mossetti Racing

 


#13 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 08 March 2016 - 12:38 AM

If someone with 25 years podium experience tells you a tip, how do you know to believe them?

 

Ya know most of the time Charlie I tend to side with experience. Until it gives me reason not too.  I really do. I have many I look to for help in this world. Even in this hobby.

 

I try to do more than hear what someone has to say. I try to listen to what they say. There is a difference. I listen for the reason or reasoning behind the "tip". It's when you ask a follow up question that the sun starts to shine.

 

Any sound tip given in good faith won't mind being questioned. If fact a solid tip will invite questions. A good faith tip want's and NEEDS to be understood and if it takes defending or explaining or coaching to do so it makes the giver happy. It has the ring of truth.

 

If they know what they are talking about you will get a reasonable explanation that makes sense that can be understood in the light of some truth of science or physical laws THEY understand and can explain. They will be specific and not give vague misleading generalizations. You know what your talking about or you don't and if you do you won't be condescending.

 

If it's a long term observation they will not mind saying so. "I flip the switch and the lights turn on. Can't explain it. Just noticed it happens pretty regular and might be worth a look see. Let me know what ya think". 

 

A good faith tip doesn't mind being wrong. Most good teachers are excellent students and actually enjoy being wrong. Hey, I get to learn something new!! Who knew? Right? No one though likes to be humiliated for their ignorance. A good faith tip doesn't do that.

 

If the only explanation one has for Newton's explanation of God's third law of motion is a list of HIS/HER personal accomplishments???? That might be a red flag. If personal attacks or hateful sarcasm are the best explanation one can generate I wouldn't give that persons advice a minutes thought even if it were right.

 

A dead give away is the answer, " The Laws of the Physical world don't apply to slot cars or slot car motors" given as the best answer someone's vast experience can generate.  

 

Look at it like this. The Devil has 6,000 years plus experience and is VERY accomplished and.....he is still WRONG. What's any mans 75 years IF he learned nothing during that time.

 

Last but not least. If the person you take instruction from is a "win at any cost" type...move on even if it sounds right. You will NEVER get the full story. He's your competitor not your mentor.

 

I'll say this. Anyone with 25+ years and dozens of National titles and multiple records is a darn good driver but useless unless he's driving my car......enough said? 596

 


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.





Electric Dreams Online Shop