radiators have no influence on speed

[David198502]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

As noted, hard to read the graph, but assuming 'speed' is on the bottom (x axis) and that it goes as follows

520 - 530 - 540 - 550 - 560

Now looking at the point where the two curves intersect (y=0) the bottom (x axis) we have

1st @ ~523.5kph
2nd @ ~528.5kph

5 = 528.5 - 523.5

That is what I got, but again, I could be reading it wrong too.. That graph is hard to read

But..

Lets not use that graph.. Lets use the 109E data your claim was based on! That would be the correct thing to do! Now that I got your att on the subject!

the whole document is twisted 90° left.
so the speed is actually on the y axis.but there is also the temperature on the y axis as well in the lower half...
and the rads settings are on the x axis in mm.

so the doc you provided states a difference of more than 50kph between open and closed rads.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by David198502

the whole document is twisted 90° left.
so the speed is actually on the y axis.

Disagree.. Look at the top of the document.. The heading is not rotated, which is the way it is scanned in and how it will appear when you click on the link. Thus all my references are to how it is presented. PS the word is rotated not twisted

Originally Posted by David198502

but there is also the temperature on the y axis as well in the lower half...

Which pertains to the temperate graph.. which is not what we are talking about, we are talking about how it affected the speed

Originally Posted by David198502

and the rads settings are on the x axis in mm.

If you want to rotate the graph, go for it, but all my references are to the graph in how it is presented (un rotated) in a typical 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper

Originally Posted by David198502

so the doc you provided states a difference of more than 50kph between open and closed rads.

Nope..

Not based on the numbers I read, i.e.

(left) 520 - 530 - 540 - 550 - 560 (right)

[David198502]

as cheesehawk says!

ace is suggest you to buy glasses

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by David198502

as cheesehawk says!

ace is suggest you to buy glasses

No need to by glasses.. In that I allready pointed out that the graph is supsect wrt the number, which is why I posted the number

What is more important to point out here is

The total lack of any data you provided to support your claim!!

That is the real joke here, how you condem 1C based on nothing what so ever!

[David198502]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

No need to by glasses.. In that I allready pointed out that the graph is supsect wrt the number, which is why I posted the number

What is more important to point out here is

The total lack of any data you provided to support your claim!!

That is the real joke here, how you condem 1C based on nothing what so ever!

well now you gave me the document to prove my claim...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by David198502

well now you gave me the document to prove my claim...

Clearly you don't understand what 'proof' means

But I am not suprised, in that your not the first to come here with nothing and make a baseless claim.

[David198502]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Clearly you don't understand what 'proof' means

But I am not suprised, in that your not the first to come here with nothing and make a baseless claim.

well my base of the claim is the game...now you brought up the doc to proof me wrong, but in the end, it supports my "baseless" claim.

[robtek]

The difference is about 50 km/h as i read it, as the two lines represent the DB601 and the DB605.