"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
Wanna race?



"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com..
.
I have several mtn. bikes, my favorite is my 400 Husky .




Wow. Scotty doesn't even have a good mountain bike.



RB
35s5
NY




RB:

What makes a good mountain bike? A good rider. You aren't one and it
doesn't matter what bike you have. With you on it it's a dork on an
expensive bike at most. You probably have a fag rear shock and think you
need it. You probably can't even ride in clip ins.

Moo-haa-haa!

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
First let me state categorically that I don't like Corvettes. Their
FRP
bodies are a joke, and they rattle miserably after only a few road
miles.
That said, it's obvious you haven't driven one recently. They are
anything
but "straight-line only metal." They handle remarkably well, and it
takes
very little suspension and frame work to prodify one for competitive
SCCA
racing. Once set up properly they are a bitch to beat. Only the
Dodge
Viper can compete in that price range. And of course with over 500
bhp, the
Corvette is anything but slow or sluggish. In a year or two the
Corvette ZO6
will have over 600 bhp.


The last Vette I drove was a 2004 and it still needed very smooth road
to do it's thing. It takes more than speed and handling on a track to
make a real world supercar.

By whose definition?? Do you think a Ferrari F430 will do any better on
rough pavement? Or a Porsche GT3?

That's why most of my friends call an NSX
a supercar, but not a Vette. That's because the NSX does things so
well that it inspires confidence behind the wheel, yet doesn't betray
the driver at critical moments. I hate Vettes. They always rattle up a
storm after 20K.

You pick the track or road, and I'll take the ZO6 while you take an NSX.
And you'll likely not see my taillights after five laps or five miles,
whichever comes first.

Since the early 90s, the Vettes have been superb handling vehicles. Are
you
referring to the older models?

Nope. I find the newer vette's nervous on less than perfect pavement,
much the way I find a WRX to be at times. By comparison it was always
easy to drive a 300ZX turbo to 130 HP and let it hang there.

My brother's Porsche Carrera gets "nervous" at about 150, but that certainly
doesn't disqualify it as a superb automobile in terms of handling and
straight-line performance.

The Mazdaspeed 6 is indeed a very competent automobile, both on the
track
and on pavement, but I believe you've greatly overstated its
abilties. It
is nowhere in the handling league with Vipers, Corvettes, and such.

That really depends on the situation. On a track you're right.

On decent roads as well. Only a fool would take his Viper or ZO6 down a
beat-up stretch of ****ty pavement at high speeds.

forthcoming Exige will outhandle everything we've mentioned so
far. The
demo Elise I drove--not a sport version, incidentally--simply blew me
away.
I had to own one.

Well, I'm jealous! I thought of buying one, but chickened out for now.
Please post a few pics and driving impressions when you get it.

I've got photos of a friend's Elise, but my car won't be here for a while.
The dealer told me today that the black on black is custom order and may not
be available. Fingers are crossed, it looks so incredibly kewl.

It's governed to do quite a bit less than that. Remove the
governor and you
can kiss your warranty goodbye.


150 MPH is the top speed via the governor. That's probably enough.

That car is probably not built to be particularly stable at that speed. Use
caution.


The Elise (roadster) and Exige (coupe) are not supercars. Handling
may be
on par with supercars, but they lack the raw horsepower to be
supercars.


This is were we part ways. All reviews and my single test drive of an
Elise point these cars handling BETTER than the Supercars mentioned.
So they deserve the same respect for being top dogs in that arena. For
sheer speed their are other cars of course. A supercar is a class
leading sports car in performance and the Elise and Exige more than
make the mark. On top of that they are PLENTY fast. The 2005 Elise
with comp. package did the 1/4 in 13.2. That's amazing. Then throw in
it's light weight and handling....SUPERCAR.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. It's meaningless to belabor
our two definitions.


AWD is nice, especially in crap weather. It even does well on the
track, if
engineered properly. My BMW 330 Ci (coupe, not convertible)
obviously
doesn't have it, but I think it's a fair trade to have RWD in a BMW
as
opposed to AWD. I have an additional set of rims with winter
ultra-performance tires in addition to the M rims with ultra-
performance
tires for summer use. Both get me around just fine, and I prefer the
RWD
for twisty roads.

We have some BMW's in our area, but all are AWD versions. It's the
only type of BMW I'd look at. As I said, AWD is my thing because it
makes the car fun even when the weather turns bad.

We get roughly 1 or 2 days a year here when AWD would mean the difference
between getting there or not. My wife's Highlander has AWD and it is nice,
but not necessary. My RWD BMW does fine with the Blizzaks.


Supercars: Porsche GT3 or McLaren, Ferraris, Aston Martin Vantage,
Saleen
S7, Ford GT, Dodge Viper, Corvette ZO6, stuff like that.

I prefer your new car to most of those. I won't even put the Saleen,
Ford or Vette on the same page as the Exige. The Exige is just amazing
and 0-60 in four seconds is certainly supercar territory. The GT3
can't do it any faster and won't handle as well, so all that's left is
the top end.
You made the right choice. You have a supercar! (I won't tell your
wife).

She was the one who picked the color.

Max

2006 Mazda MAZDASPEED 6, 5.4 13.9 (C&D Feb '06)



Rather leisurely. A 400cc motorcycle will better those figures.
Sorry,
Bubbles.


Now you're being silly. My friend's funny car is faster still. The
Mazdaspeed6 made the list of world's fastest sedans and in this hilly
terain with rain and snow it's a better car than an M5 for going fast.
And even with just a 350 dollar CAI added, the speed6 will drop below
13.5 for a 1/4 mile. AWD is a must for that kind of driving here. A
330XI is popular around here and for good reason. It's slower than a
Speed6, but still a fantastic car. Speed aint the bottom line and the
330XI does a lot of things right.
With it's AWD system, the M5 needs a perfect hookup to take the STI
and in a variety of road conditions other than ideal (read Real world)
the STI will trounce it. And the new Evo is even faster. AWD changes
everything in real world driving conditions
Don't get me wrong. I love the M5 (I drove a 2005 M3 and it great),
but to pretend that these Japanese efforts aren't pushing the envelope
is silly. Add to that a few cheap mods (not cheap for an M5) an you
have AWD monsters that can take on most any car. Subaru is rumored to
be working on a STI model for 2008 that will have 390HP. It'll weigh a
LOT less than a M5 and still be AWD.
Now,,,,,having driven BMW's and Subaru WRX and STI I'll say honestly
that I prefer the BMW, but it's not about the engines. Both cars just
take a different approach to driving and drivers and no one will agree
on which is more fun. But I prefer a car that feels confident when
driven hard; a quality missing from the WRX series for me. I find them
nervous, though they always seem to do the impossible when driven
hard. The BMW, even in a situation where there is only RWD, somehow
feels more secure and planted even when it's not.
Now when the M5 AWD V10 hits the market (That's what I heard from a
buddy at Manhattan BMW), that'll probably be the best sports sedan
ever. But for what it'll cost I think I can have more fun in my Speed6
and a new Elise for the same money!

Do post a pic of the Exige when you get her. Or send to me and I'll
post. Looks like our Speed6 will be in next Thursday, so I hope to
have it here on that weekend. I'm putting in stage two exhaust and a
CAI for now. Beyond that few will even know she's fast. Mazda built a
real Q car and I'd like to see what the big upgrade in power will be
for 2009.


RB
35s5
NY

150 MPH is the top speed via the governor. That's probably enough.



That car is probably not built to be particularly stable at that
speed. Use
caution.


From 1st hand experience I know that the Speed6 is very stable at 155
MPH. The only mods on the car were a stage 2 exhaust and the CPU had
been flashed to disable the limiter. I doubt I'll take mine beyond 130
MPH very often. That's an arrest here if you get caught.


We get roughly 1 or 2 days a year here when AWD would mean the
difference
between getting there or not.


We get much more than that and the twisty narrow roads, while fun on
the good days, should also be safe for Suzanne's commute on the bad
days. AWD was the only choice for a 3rd car. But if I sell the MG
project, an Elise would be a too much fun to bear.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. It's meaningless to
belabor
our two definitions.

Okay, Supercar owner.


The dealer told me today that the black on black is custom order
and may not
be available. Fingers are crossed, it looks so incredibly kewl.


I'm sure he can get it or try another dealer. Money talks.


You pick the track or road, and I'll take the ZO6 while you take an
NSX.


If I pick a twisty road here, a REAL road which has an occasional bump
and crack, I believe you'd need a lot of practice to beat an NSX in a
Vette. I've driven the NSX on such roads and it's got simply world
class handling with precisely the correct amount of power available to
apply. The complient chassis inspires confidence where the Vette does
not. The NSX is a superbly balanced design and it's built to a
standard the Vette can't get close to.
Anyway....that's my opinion and I agree the Vette is faster, but I'd
rather have sex with Scotty's wife rather than own one for free.



RB
35s5
NY

What makes a good mountain bike? A good rider. You aren't one and it
doesn't matter what bike you have. With you on it it's a dork on an
expensive bike at most. You probably have a fag rear shock and think
you
need it. You probably can't even ride in clip ins.



Am I not paying enough attention to you, Bob?
Okay.....

I'm a pretty good rider. I'll take terrain and hills most riders near
my age would pass up. I also shoulder my bike and climb with it on
occasion. That;s how I tore chest muscle. The bike caught on some
rocks and roots and I yanked too hard. I still finished my ride. My
bike has no rear shocks, but some very good bikes do have them.

A good bike is still a good bike even with a beginner rider on it,
Bob. A good bike with no rider is STILL a good bike, or they'd cost
less in stores when not sold with a good rider in the box.

There. No go try something else. My home theatre is about a week or so
from completion. I did a sound test yesterday and it's fantastic. I
also ran the cables for the projector, so now I just need to refine
the sub placements and I can lock it all in.


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
What makes a good mountain bike? A good rider. You aren't one and it
doesn't matter what bike you have. With you on it it's a dork on an
expensive bike at most. You probably have a fag rear shock and think
you
need it. You probably can't even ride in clip ins.



Am I not paying enough attention to you, Bob?
Okay.....

Ooops! I hit a raw nerve there.



I'm a pretty good rider. I'll take terrain and hills most riders near
my age would pass up.

Pass up for more difficult terrain perhaps? Somehow, I take it riders in the
NYC area aren't that good, be it road or mountain.

I also shoulder my bike and climb with it on
occasion. That;s how I tore chest muscle.

What's the big deal about carrying a bike? Did a picture of that on the
cover of Outside Magazine impress you or something?

Cardiac or chest muscle?

The bike caught on some
rocks and roots and I yanked too hard. I still finished my ride.

I endoed, split my helmet, tore the tire off of the wheel, snap 1/2 the
handlebar off, landed on my back in rocks and injured an arm and shoulder. I
still rode the 12 miles through mountainous terrain back to the car. How
many points is that worth?

My
bike has no rear shocks, but some very good bikes do have them.

What makes a very good bike? What ones do you have? Should they have Mafac
brakes? (Mooo-haaa-haaa!!!)


A good bike is still a good bike even with a beginner rider on it,
Bob. A good bike with no rider is STILL a good bike, or they'd cost
less in stores when not sold with a good rider in the box.

A bike has no value good or bad until a rider is on it. Do you buy your
bikes like you buy suits? Off the rack? For someone of your purported means?
Tre-gauche!!!


There. No go try something else. My home theatre is about a week or so
from completion. I did a sound test yesterday and it's fantastic. I
also ran the cables for the projector, so now I just need to refine
the sub placements and I can lock it all in.


I'm certain you are squeaking all you can out of your subterranean chamber
with the 7 foot ceiling.

How big and how well equipped is your exercise room? Do you use a wind
trainer or rollers?

Face it bubbly boy, you are past your prime, you have no base for just about
any athletic endeavour and it's too late to build one. Once you start
comparing yourself to others in your age bracket you are over the hill!
Stick to the big screen tv!

Mooo-haaa-haaa!!!!!!

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
...

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
What makes a good mountain bike? A good rider. You aren't one and it
doesn't matter what bike you have. With you on it it's a dork on an
expensive bike at most. You probably have a fag rear shock and think
you
need it. You probably can't even ride in clip ins.



Am I not paying enough attention to you, Bob?
Okay.....

Ooops! I hit a raw nerve there.



I'm a pretty good rider. I'll take terrain and hills most riders near
my age would pass up.

Pass up for more difficult terrain perhaps? Somehow, I take it riders
in the NYC area aren't that good, be it road or mountain.

I also shoulder my bike and climb with it on
occasion. That;s how I tore chest muscle.

What's the big deal about carrying a bike? Did a picture of that on
the cover of Outside Magazine impress you or something?

Cardiac or chest muscle?

The bike caught on some
rocks and roots and I yanked too hard. I still finished my ride.

I endoed, split my helmet, tore the tire off of the wheel, snap 1/2
the handlebar off, landed on my back in rocks and injured an arm and
shoulder. I still rode the 12 miles through mountainous terrain back
to the car. How many points is that worth?

My
bike has no rear shocks, but some very good bikes do have them.

What makes a very good bike? What ones do you have? Should they have
Mafac brakes? (Mooo-haaa-haaa!!!)


A good bike is still a good bike even with a beginner rider on it,
Bob. A good bike with no rider is STILL a good bike, or they'd cost
less in stores when not sold with a good rider in the box.

A bike has no value good or bad until a rider is on it. Do you buy
your bikes like you buy suits? Off the rack? For someone of your
purported means? Tre-gauche!!!


There. No go try something else. My home theatre is about a week or
so
from completion. I did a sound test yesterday and it's fantastic. I
also ran the cables for the projector, so now I just need to refine
the sub placements and I can lock it all in.


I'm certain you are squeaking all you can out of your subterranean
chamber with the 7 foot ceiling.

How big and how well equipped is your exercise room? Do you use a wind
trainer or rollers?

Face it bubbly boy, you are past your prime, you have no base for just
about any athletic endeavour and it's too late to build one. Once you
start comparing yourself to others in your age bracket you are over
the hill! Stick to the big screen tv!

Mooo-haaa-haaa!!!!!!

Gunn-Rita Dahle could kick lamer Bobsplat's obese ass on a mountain bike
or any bike for that matter. I'm in my 80's and could ride Bobsplat off
my back wheel any day of the week. In my prime I regularly climbed Mt.
Mitchell in under six hours.

Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur Hubbard

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message

My
bike has no rear shocks, but some very good bikes do have them.

Both of mine do--they are fully suspended.

Max

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
2006 Mazda MAZDASPEED 6, 5.4 13.9 (C&D Feb '06)



Rather leisurely. A 400cc motorcycle will better those figures.
Sorry,
Bubbles.


Now you're being silly. My friend's funny car is faster still. The
Mazdaspeed6 made the list of world's fastest sedans and in this hilly
terain with rain and snow it's a better car than an M5 for going fast.
And even with just a 350 dollar CAI added, the speed6 will drop below
13.5 for a 1/4 mile.

I'm going to have to see these claims in the automotive press before I
believe them. Sounds highly unrealistic, more like wishful thinking of a
new owner.

AWD is a must for that kind of driving here. A
330XI is popular around here and for good reason. It's slower than a
Speed6, but still a fantastic car. Speed aint the bottom line and the
330XI does a lot of things right.
With it's AWD system, the M5 needs a perfect hookup to take the STI
and in a variety of road conditions other than ideal (read Real world)
the STI will trounce it. And the new Evo is even faster. AWD changes
everything in real world driving conditions
Don't get me wrong. I love the M5 (I drove a 2005 M3 and it great),
but to pretend that these Japanese efforts aren't pushing the envelope
is silly. Add to that a few cheap mods (not cheap for an M5) an you
have AWD monsters that can take on most any car. Subaru is rumored to
be working on a STI model for 2008 that will have 390HP. It'll weigh a
LOT less than a M5 and still be AWD.

You've grossly overstated the value of AWD. Most competent drivers prefer
RWD on the track and on paved roads. There aren't many places in this
country where Euro-style rallye cars can outshine the RWD supercars, or even
BMW M-cars. I don't push the envelope on dirt or snow/ice. Too risky, and
bodywork gets very expensive.

Now,,,,,having driven BMW's and Subaru WRX and STI I'll say honestly
that I prefer the BMW, but it's not about the engines. Both cars just
take a different approach to driving and drivers and no one will agree
on which is more fun. But I prefer a car that feels confident when
driven hard; a quality missing from the WRX series for me. I find them
nervous, though they always seem to do the impossible when driven
hard. The BMW, even in a situation where there is only RWD, somehow
feels more secure and planted even when it's not.
Now when the M5 AWD V10 hits the market (That's what I heard from a
buddy at Manhattan BMW), that'll probably be the best sports sedan
ever. But for what it'll cost I think I can have more fun in my Speed6
and a new Elise for the same money!

Or a Porsche GT3. Almost.


Max

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 03:21:22 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
groups.com...

Quite different, actually. The WRX Sti has 300+ hp, while the M5 has
over
500 bhp and the new, soon-to-be-released M3 has a 440 bhp V-8, and the
car
weighs less than the previous M3. Doubtful an Sti would stay with
either,
even on a closed course.



0-60 and 1/4 mile specs...


2006 BMW M5 4.1 12.4 (R&T Feb '06)


2006 Subaru WRX STI 4.5 13.0 MT Dec '05)

Not exactly a giant leap for the M5 and the AWD launch of the STI is
awesome.

The M5 beats the Sti every time. That would certainly qualify as
"dusting."

And just for a comparison to my AWD Speed6 family sedan....which is a
more comfortable car than either the M5 or STI....

2006 Mazda MAZDASPEED 6, 5.4 13.9 (C&D Feb '06)

Rather leisurely. A 400cc motorcycle will better those figures. Sorry,
Bubbles.

Max


It'll slow a lot by the time you fit the sidecar to carry the wife,
kids and dog....

Better opt for the 500cc then.

Max