Holy cripps, why use 50 words when you can use 1000. !
SIR, YOU MISREPRESENT ME, TERRIBLY.
I certainly don't have any issues with 30hp & 100 mph, and never have.
THEY ARE ROCK SOLID in Tuning for Speed, and always have been.
They are near the 1st words I wrotheth in this thread here even.
Heck, then I quoted Goldstars and Norton Inters and even veteran Triumphs that all neatly fit that graph.
It seemed to be YOU that was arguing they were wrong... ?? !! ?? (see your quote below)
it is just me, or have we been saying about the same thing all along. ?? ?? ?? ??
Or, has Danno supplied you with a get-out-of-jail-card for free here ?
Dances with Shrapnel said:I have never had an issue with the qualified number of 30 hp (@ 100 mph) from the Phil Irving graph and I continue to challenge you in front of this forum to prove otherwise!
SIR, YOU MISREPRESENT ME, TERRIBLY.
I certainly don't have any issues with 30hp & 100 mph, and never have.
THEY ARE ROCK SOLID in Tuning for Speed, and always have been.
They are near the 1st words I wrotheth in this thread here even.
Heck, then I quoted Goldstars and Norton Inters and even veteran Triumphs that all neatly fit that graph.
It seemed to be YOU that was arguing they were wrong... ?? !! ?? (see your quote below)
it is just me, or have we been saying about the same thing all along. ?? ?? ?? ??
Or, has Danno supplied you with a get-out-of-jail-card for free here ?
Post by Dances with Shrapnel
<snip>
Your commonly quoted motorcycle numbers continue to not add up as they defy the laws of fluid dynamics. Plug in the numbers and you will see or are you disputing the laws of fluid dynamics?.