On 1/12/2023 7:19 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>> You say that as if you genuinely believe yourself to be in some
>> impartial position of judgement.
>
> it's pure logic

Not in your case.

Your lack of understanding of the subject matter means that you may
believe that something "sounds right" without having any idea if it's
relevant.

A perfect example was when Clasener made his infamous claim about the
only difference between boosted and unboosted brake systems was the
presence of the booster itself. That claim was *so* wrong it was
ludicrous that anyone who had been in any kind of teaching position
could ever have made it, but *you* believed it to be true because it
"made sense" to you based on your previous experience of driving older
cars with unboosted brakes.

The utterly ridiculous part about that which lacked *any* kind of logic
at all on your part was that I told you how you could easily test that
theory yourself by disconnecting the vacuum supply hose on the brake
booster of your Lancer, pushing the brake pedal a few times to
extinguish the residual vacuum in the booster itself, and then starting
and driving the car a short distance at low speed to see just how poorly
the brakes would have performed compared to anything you "remember" with
unboosted brakes.

It was about as simple a confirmation test as anyone could have made
that was completely non destructive, but you chose not to do so because
you were worried that it would "break you car" which was utter rubbish.

So instead, you remain ignorant to this very day, and there is
absolutely *nothing* logical about that in the slightest.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 1/12/2023 7:23 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:

> yes. he talks as if what he says is always right and you're always
> wrong. perhaps we should ask him to explain how centrifugal force
> straightens car wheels?  :)

Yet *another* example of you being too stupid to read what was written
and believe what you were told :)

You do this better than anyone around here :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 7:19 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>> You say that as if you genuinely believe yourself to be in some
>>> impartial position of judgement.
>>
>> it's pure logic
>
> Not in your case.

you say you comprehend english well, but you don't.

here's what was said, and if you hadn't snipped it I wouldn't have to
repost it..

.................................................
>>> and if I hadn't replied to Xeno, you wouldn't have seen this and
>>> offered this explanation, like you don't many times, yet you
>>> ask/wonder why I think he knows more than you.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but that comment makes zero sense.
>
> it makes perfect sense. if you don't dispute what is said because you
> don't see what is said, then there's no alternative view or
> explanation to consider.

................................................

that makes sense to any person of reasonable intelligence, but if you
can't follow it, then that's your problem

>
> Your lack of understanding of the subject matter means that you may
> believe that something "sounds right" without having any idea if it's
> relevant.

I may believe something sounds right or not, but I have enough
sense/knowledge to know in most cases if it's relevant

>
> A perfect example was when Clasener made his infamous claim about the
> only difference between boosted and unboosted brake systems was the
> presence of the booster itself. That claim was *so* wrong it was
> ludicrous that anyone who had been in any kind of teaching position
> could ever have made it, but *you* believed it to be true because it
> "made sense" to you based on your previous experience of driving older
> cars with unboosted brakes.
>
> The utterly ridiculous part about that which lacked *any* kind of
> logic at all on your part was that I told you how you could easily
> test that theory yourself by disconnecting the vacuum supply hose on
> the brake booster of your Lancer, pushing the brake pedal a few times
> to extinguish the residual vacuum in the booster itself, and then
> starting and driving the car a short distance at low speed to see just
> how poorly the brakes would have performed compared to anything you
> "remember" with unboosted brakes.
>
> It was about as simple a confirmation test as anyone could have made
> that was completely non destructive, but you chose not to do so
> because you were worried that it would "break you car" which was utter
> rubbish.

no, I didn't want to mess with the car because it was under warranty

>
> So instead, you remain ignorant to this very day, and there is
> absolutely *nothing* logical about that in the slightest.
>

and that's all irrelevant to my original point that if you don't see
what Xeno posts you can't rebut it

--
Have a nice day!..

Noddy wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 7:51 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:

snip inapplicable to the 'liar' issue

>
> Had your clueless mate any relevant experience...

And where exactly is your "relevant experience" Fraudster?

alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 7:23 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>> yes. he talks as if what he says is always right and you're always
>> wrong. perhaps we should ask him to explain how centrifugal force
>> straightens car wheels?  :)
>
> Yet *another* example of you being too stupid to read what was written
> and believe what you were told :)
>
> You do this better than anyone around here :)
>

so you aren't going to explain your centrifugal force steering geometry
theory then? hardly a surprise since it's all rubbish apparently.

--
Have a nice day!..

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 7:23 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>> yes. he talks as if what he says is always right and you're always
>> wrong. perhaps we should ask him to explain how centrifugal force
>> straightens car wheels?  :)
>
> Yet *another* example of you being too stupid to read what was written
> and believe what you were told :)
>
> You do this better than anyone around here :)
>

Oh give it up Fraudster. You're getting embarrassing now.

alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 9:32 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 16:27:44 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>
>>> And he hasn't offered you *personally* any proof, that's more to the
>>> point. Showing photos of his cars isn't proof. Showing photos of a
>>> muffler system he's welded up isn't proof. In fact, all that does is
>>> confirm he could get a job at Midas Mufflers. ;-)
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Whereas I couldn`t see you being employed *anywhere* you broken down
>> old cunt.
>
> He *hasn't* been employed anywhere. Not for 25 years! But *still* he
> manages somehow to remain "extremely trade relevant".
>
> Perhaps he could take a moment to explain to everyone how it is that he
> achieves such a feat, as I'm unable to see how he does it :)

Yep. Just embarrassing.

To highlight the bleedin' obvious Fraudster... *You* proudly announced
your retirement 20 years ago *AND* there is absolutely zero evidence of
you working *anywhere* prior to that. Yet here you are! Banging your old
"trade relevant" drum. It's just embarrassing.

alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 4:21 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>> you can't justify it as the claims are contradictory. obviously all or
>> two of them are a lie
>
> Felix, why do you care?

You're a hoot Fraudster! You expect people not to care about your
abundant lies, but then you get all outraged & abusive when they doubt
your "trade relevant" opinions.
>
> For the life of me I don't know why you have such a big problem
> understanding this concept,

Eh? What "concept"? It's not a "concept" that you are a liar & fraud.
They're *facts*.

> but I've told you *many* times now that I'm
> happy to engage you in regular conversation.

Another claim for which there is no supporting evidence...

> In fact, we've spoken more
> in the last week than we have in a very long time and to be honest I
> quite enjoyed it. You seemed to be genuinely interested in the subject
> matter, and when you're *not* sticking your tongue up Clueless
> Clasener's backside it makes for an interesting exchange.
>
> However, if you want to play Groundhog day and re-live all this old shit
> that's been done to death *thousands* of times already I'm just not
> fucking interested.

Yet not only do you keep responding, you keep throwing abuse on the fire.

> I've got far better things to do than sit here and
> re-read the same tired old posts

Yep. If nobody is watching cars trundling down Fucker Cct then do they
really exist?

> that have already been regurgitated so
> many times that it would be impossible to count,

O Hypocrite be thy name! How many times in this thread have *you* (and
your Enablers) dredged up old rubbish? Shedloads Buffo, shedloads.

> and how you and your
> mates can find *any* of this to be entertaining is quite beyond me.

Jaysus Fraudster! What's "beyond" you dwarfs Jupiter.

> Just like I cannot understand how none of you seem to be able to go a
> *single* day without talking about me.

You *cannot* be this stupid. You lie you fool head off, abuse the crap
out of people, are a hypocrite of monstrous proportions, and yet you
expect people to "not care". What I don't understand is how the bubble
of fantasy that you've built around yourself has lasted this long. What
with such an enormous prick inside it.

alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 7:28 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2023 4:21 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> you can't justify it as the claims are contradictory. obviously all
>>>> or two of them are a lie
>>>
>>> Felix, why do you care?
>>
>> just stating the facts. obvioulsy you don't care about your
>> dishonesty, and are unwilling to admit it, but most ppl take pride in
>> being honest
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> Between Jerky Birko, Clueless Clasener and that fucking rabid lunatic
> from Moffat Beach you have the three biggest shit talkers in this group,
> and the last time I ever heard you say *anything* about that was ....
> Never :)
>
>
>> a lot of words to avoid admitting you lied..
>
> Sounds to me a whole lot like you've just got your rags on because I'm
> not interested in playing your stupid game.

Pointing out your lies & hypocrisy isn't a "game" Fraudster. It's what
you bought entirely on yourself by being an abusive & monumentally
stupid arsehole.

hth

alvey

On 1/12/2023 8:15 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>> Your lack of understanding of the subject matter means that you may
>> believe that something "sounds right" without having any idea if it's
>> relevant.
>
> I may believe something sounds right or not, but I have enough
> sense/knowledge to know in most cases if it's relevant

No you don't :)

Whenever conversation gets even *slightly* technical you bail out
because it flies over your head. That's not a criticism of you
personally, and is something most people who are not into the nitty
gritty of automotive tech would do. However when you make comments like
this where you declare you "have enough sense/knowledge to know in most
cases if it's relevant" is when you're talking through your arse.

You're the bloke who thought scheduled timing belt changes were an
unnecessary con job, which pretty much highlights to anyone the limit of
your mechanical understanding. With an understanding *that* shallow, it
would be a practical impossibility for you to make an assessment of
relevance on anything even *remotely* technical and you're only fooling
yourself in thinking otherwise.

>> It was about as simple a confirmation test as anyone could have made
>> that was completely non destructive, but you chose not to do so
>> because you were worried that it would "break you car" which was utter
>> rubbish.
>
> no, I didn't want to mess with the car because it was under warranty

As you were told at the time Felix, it was a completely non destructive
test that no one other than you would have ever known about. But you can
perform the test without needing to touch a single thing under the
bonnet if you like, and you can even use your ZS to do so.

Go find a quiet area with a slight elevation in the road that is steep
enough to roll down in neutral. Park your car, switch off the engine and
press the brake pedal a few times to remove the vacuum from the booster
and then let the car roll down the incline with the engine off. Once
you've reached a speed of about 25km/h or so, try stopping the car with
the brake pedal and see how ineffective the brakes actually are compared
to anything you remember from back in the day that didn't have power
brakes.

A word of advice. If you *do* decide that you want to try this test, and
I doubt that you will but anyway, then make sure of two conditions being
met before you do: Firstly, ensure there is no other traffic or
pedestrians nearby, and secondly be prepared to use the handbrake to
stop as the regular service brakes will be *very* ineffective indeed :)

>> So instead, you remain ignorant to this very day, and there is
>> absolutely *nothing* logical about that in the slightest.
>>
>
> and that's all irrelevant to my original point that if you don't see
> what Xeno posts you can't rebut it

I couldn't care less about his posts Felix. I've spent more than enough
time reading his bullshit to know that he is a clueless fake.

I don't reply to him, I reply to you. But I can see that replying to you
is a waste of time in most cases.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 1/12/2023 8:18 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:

> so you aren't going to explain your centrifugal force steering geometry
> theory then? hardly a surprise since it's all rubbish apparently.

How many times to do need to be told something before it registers with you?

You know how I've told you before that I believe you are remarkably
stupid? This bullshit right here is one of the reasons *why* I do.....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 1/12/2023 12:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Keithr0 wrote:

>> But you're not going to show them are you, so you expect us to believe
>> you sight unseen.
>
> who is us? I don't care if you believe me or not. those who know and/or
> trust me will.

Init funny how when you apply that logic to *yourself* you see it as
being completely rational and don't understand why anyone else would
think otherwise, but if I do exactly the same thing it's a crime that
needs to be investigated by Interpol :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 12:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>
>>> But you're not going to show them are you, so you expect us to
>>> believe you sight unseen.
>>
>> who is us? I don't care if you believe me or not. those who know
>> and/or trust me will.
>
> Init funny how when you apply that logic to *yourself* you see it as
> being completely rational and don't understand why anyone else would
> think otherwise, but if I do exactly the same thing it's a crime that
> needs to be investigated by Interpol :)

As I understand felix, he is willing to show his proof to people he
trusts. This of course rules out you and the Enablers. Is that correct
felix?

alvey

On 30/11/2023 11:01 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 30/11/2023 9:56 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2023 11:28 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28/11/2023 4:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the entire exhaust system needed replacement, which was one of
>>>>>>>>>> the factors in deciding to upgrade to a new car.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You should have come over when you had your chance. I'm not too
>>>>>>>>> bad with pipes :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/album/Vp0jMP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every time you post boring, trivial pix like this historic
>>>>>>>> collection it just begs the question, "So how about some pix of
>>>>>>>> the fabled NA of the SIE Fraudster?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can't if it never existed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you don't believe that he owned the business in the Altona
>>>>>> Industrial Estate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt that he did. where's the evidence? not even photos..
>>>>
>>>> You claim to have run a successful business for 30 years, where's
>>>> the evidence? not even photos..
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do have photos
>>>
>> But you're not going to show them are you, so you expect us to believe
>> you sight unseen.
>
> who is us? I don't care if you believe me or not. those who know and/or
> trust me will.

So you expect noddy to do what you're not willing to. Hypocrisy much?

>> Don't ask for that which you aren't willing to provide yourself.
>
>

On Friday, 1 December 2023 at 09:16:31 UTC+11, Slasher wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
> > On 30/11/2023 4:21 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> >
> >> you can't justify it as the claims are contradictory. obviously all or
> >> two of them are a lie
> >
> > Felix, why do you care?
>
> You're a hoot Fraudster! You expect people not to care about your
> abundant lies, but then you get all outraged & abusive when they doubt
> your "trade relevant" opinions.
> >
> > For the life of me I don't know why you have such a big problem
> > understanding this concept,
>
> Eh? What "concept"? It's not a "concept" that you are a liar & fraud.
> They're *facts*.
>
> > but I've told you *many* times now that I'm
> > happy to engage you in regular conversation.
>
> Another claim for which there is no supporting evidence...
>
> > In fact, we've spoken more
> > in the last week than we have in a very long time and to be honest I
> > quite enjoyed it. You seemed to be genuinely interested in the subject
> > matter, and when you're *not* sticking your tongue up Clueless
> > Clasener's backside it makes for an interesting exchange.
> >
> > However, if you want to play Groundhog day and re-live all this old shit
> > that's been done to death *thousands* of times already I'm just not
> > fucking interested.
>
> Yet not only do you keep responding, you keep throwing abuse on the fire.
>
> > I've got far better things to do than sit here and
> > re-read the same tired old posts
>
> Yep. If nobody is watching cars trundling down Fucker Cct then do they
> really exist?
>
> > that have already been regurgitated so
> > many times that it would be impossible to count,
>
> O Hypocrite be thy name! How many times in this thread have *you* (and
> your Enablers) dredged up old rubbish? Shedloads Buffo, shedloads.
>
> > and how you and your
> > mates can find *any* of this to be entertaining is quite beyond me.
>
> Jaysus Fraudster! What's "beyond" you dwarfs Jupiter.
>
> > Just like I cannot understand how none of you seem to be able to go a
> > *single* day without talking about me.
>
> You *cannot* be this stupid. You lie you fool head off, abuse the crap
> out of people, are a hypocrite of monstrous proportions, and yet you
> expect people to "not care". What I don't understand is how the bubble
> of fantasy that you've built around yourself has lasted this long. What
> with such an enormous prick inside it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4qcpY6dq80
>
>
> alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 8:15 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Your lack of understanding of the subject matter means that you may
>>> believe that something "sounds right" without having any idea if
>>> it's relevant.
>>
>> I may believe something sounds right or not, but I have enough
>> sense/knowledge to know in most cases if it's relevant
>
> No you don't :)

only in your worthless opinion..

>
> Whenever conversation gets even *slightly* technical you bail out
> because it flies over your head.

no, because I'm just not interested enough

> That's not a criticism of you personally, and is something most people
> who are not into the nitty gritty of automotive tech would do. However
> when you make comments like this where you declare you "have enough
> sense/knowledge to know in most cases if it's relevant" is when you're
> talking through your arse.

that's nonsense. it's easy enough to determine relevancy. for example
when Xeno explained steering geometry, one didn't need to be an Einstein
to know that was relevant to your erroneous claim about centrifugal
force straightening wheels.

>
> You're the bloke who thought scheduled timing belt changes were an
> unnecessary con job, which pretty much highlights to anyone the limit
> of your mechanical understanding. With an understanding *that*
> shallow, it would be a practical impossibility for you to make an
> assessment of relevance on anything even *remotely* technical and
> you're only fooling yourself in thinking otherwise.
>
>>> It was about as simple a confirmation test as anyone could have made
>>> that was completely non destructive, but you chose not to do so
>>> because you were worried that it would "break you car" which was
>>> utter rubbish.
>>
>> no, I didn't want to mess with the car because it was under warranty
>
> As you were told at the time Felix,

by you! however, I take what you say with.. how do you put it?.. a
mountain size grain of salt.

> it was a completely non destructive test that no one other than you
> would have ever known about. But you can perform the test without
> needing to touch a single thing under the bonnet if you like, and you
> can even use your ZS to do so.
>
> Go find a quiet area with a slight elevation in the road that is steep
> enough to roll down in neutral. Park your car, switch off the engine
> and press the brake pedal a few times to remove the vacuum from the
> booster and then let the car roll down the incline with the engine
> off. Once you've reached a speed of about 25km/h or so, try stopping
> the car with the brake pedal and see how ineffective the brakes
> actually are compared to anything you remember from back in the day
> that didn't have power brakes.
>
> A word of advice. If you *do* decide that you want to try this test,
> and I doubt that you will but anyway, then make sure of two conditions
> being met before you do: Firstly, ensure there is no other traffic or
> pedestrians nearby, and secondly be prepared to use the handbrake to
> stop as the regular service brakes will be *very* ineffective indeed :)
>
>>> So instead, you remain ignorant to this very day, and there is
>>> absolutely *nothing* logical about that in the slightest.
>>>
>>
>> and that's all irrelevant to my original point that if you don't see
>> what Xeno posts you can't rebut it
>
> I couldn't care less about his posts Felix.

that's irrelevant to my point

> I've spent more than enough time reading his bullshit to know that he
> is a clueless fake.
>
> I don't reply to him, I reply to you. But I can see that replying to
> you is a waste of time in most cases.
>
>

why? because I don't accept your word as gospel

--
Have a nice day!..

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 8:18 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>> so you aren't going to explain your centrifugal force steering
>> geometry theory then? hardly a surprise since it's all rubbish
>> apparently.
>
> How many times to do need to be told something before it registers
> with you?
>
> You know how I've told you before that I believe you are remarkably
> stupid? This bullshit right here is one of the reasons *why* I do.....
>
>
>

you have a talent for saying something that says nothing. but it's ok,
'we' know you can't defend your claim, because you've been dodging doing
so for years now. but maybe your fan bois Daryl and jonz can take a
crack at it. no? I didn't think so.. even they know it's bogus, I would
suggest.

--
Have a nice day!..

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 12:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>
>>> But you're not going to show them are you, so you expect us to
>>> believe you sight unseen.
>>
>> who is us? I don't care if you believe me or not. those who know
>> and/or trust me will.
>
> Init funny how when you apply that logic to *yourself* you see it as
> being completely rational and don't understand why anyone else would
> think otherwise, but if I do exactly the same thing it's a crime that
> needs to be investigated by Interpol :)
>

so then who are those who do believe you're a qualified mechanic. please
list them here...

--
Have a nice day!..

alvey wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 1/12/2023 12:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>>> But you're not going to show them are you, so you expect us to
>>>> believe you sight unseen.
>>>
>>> who is us? I don't care if you believe me or not. those who know
>>> and/or trust me will.
>>
>> Init funny how when you apply that logic to *yourself* you see it as
>> being completely rational and don't understand why anyone else would
>> think otherwise, but if I do exactly the same thing it's a crime that
>> needs to be investigated by Interpol :)
>
> As I understand felix, he is willing to show his proof to people he
> trusts. This of course rules out you and the Enablers. Is that correct
> felix?
>

no, I'm just saying those who trust me will take me at my word. but that
is not to say it can't be proven if I wished to do so. and of course as
you say, Noddy and his gang wouldn't qualify as worthy recipients.

>
> alvey

--
Have a nice day!..

On 1/12/2023 7:48 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 7:23 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>> yes. he talks as if what he says is always right and you're always
>> wrong. perhaps we should ask him to explain how centrifugal force
>> straightens car wheels?  :)
>
> Yet *another* example of you being too stupid to read what was written
> and believe what you were told :)
>
> You do this better than anyone around here :)
>

I beg to differ Darren, *YOU* are to stupid to *read* and *understand*
what was written. You claimed that centrifugal force in the CVs
straightens the steering. You brought to your defence two very desperate
links, one of which was about helicopters and in it was contained an
explanation of what was happening in the CV - it was the rubber one,
remember? The other link was a total nothing, IIRC, and didn't argue
your case at all. This was to be expected from someone who never
attended TAFE, never studied automotive theory, and picked up knowledge
*on the fly*. What screws your *theory* is that the concept, and
*actuality* of torque steer does the exact opposite of what you say the
CVs do to steering. Instead of straightening the steering, torque steer
*turns* the steering. It does that to an inherent feature designed into
the Birfield CV, torque transmission will be progressively increased as
the angle of the joint increases. That torque increase plays into a
couple of features of the steering geometry - the steering axis
inclination (SAI) combined with scrub radius. Scrub radius can be
positive, zero, or negative, the only difference that makes is the
*direction* the steering will pull. A zero scrub radius is rarely seen
in modern automobiles because, for one thing, it makes steering very
vague. It also makes for heavy steering, especially with the wide wheels
cars are equipped with today.

Here's a nice reasonably simple description of the two terms, yes, they
are interlinked. First sentence says it all. As you can see, it isn't
just caster that keeps the wheels in the straight ahead position

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrub_radius

Effects of SAI
SAI *urges the wheels to a straight ahead position* By inclining
the steering axis inward (away from the wheel), it causes the
spindle to *rise and fall* as the wheels are turned in one
direction or the other. Because the tire cannot be forced into
the ground as the spindle travels in an arc, the tire/wheel
assembly *raises the suspension* and thus causes the tire/wheel
assembly to seek the low (center) return point when it is allowed
to return. Thus, since it has a tendency to *maintain* or *seek*
a *straight ahead position*, less positive caster is needed to
maintain directional stability. SAI adds positive camber while
turning for both steering tires. A vehicle provides stable
handling without any of the drawbacks of high positive caster
*because of SAI*.

If I was teaching the above, I would have to add explanatory notes here
and there since the above is, at best, a precis. It does cover the
requisite points however.

Now, recall how I said that an increase in CV angle brings about an
increase in torque (over what is fed into the half shaft).

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwCXtVWACPvFw9PlAxv2Ggt_wsS6-S-3R105iYC9HNBhCtJ_Y8vOwZPxRfdCWPWi3bLLs&usqp=CAU

Note how, with equal length driveshafts, the *angles* of both drive
shafts from the horizontal *must be equal*. If they are not, you get
more force (torque) increase at the shaft with the greatest angle. That
interacts with the scrub radius and SAI to give a turning force under
acceleration. That manifests itself as a pull right or left on the steering.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRV2oN8Gi9-vPO9GNgpuiWyxWjWusWfqOFuBunMJMz5T-63yokvdVkiZnzOEne3M8qLgIU&usqp=CAU

Note in the above, this time we have long and short half shafts. Note
two that the CV angle is slightly greater. That CV will exert a greater
force (torque) and that will cause the car to pull to one side under
acceleration. Depending on the scrub radius, +ve or -ve, the short axle
will cause the steering to pull one way. In the case above, with -ve
scrub radius, and the short axle on the LHS, the torque steer will be to
the left.

If the mechanic has never done suspension theory and driveline training
(you) then the mechanic cannot be expected to understand all the nuances
of steering geometry just because they've pulled a few suspensions apart
in their time. Don't know how it works, you won't be able to diagnose
it. You are definitely the poster child for that here! You can sit there
and tell me a thousand times that you did an apprenticeship as a motor
mechanic and, by the mere act of you claiming CVs straighten the
steering, I know 100% that you have never ever planted your arse in and
apprentice class and that *fact* is 100% verified by the abesnce of any
apprentice records in your name at PROV.

A helpful clip for you, and others, to watch that will help with some of
the basics that you haven't a clue about currently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZLiP_37Oso&t=306s

--

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Keithr0 wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 11:01 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2023 9:56 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 30/11/2023 11:28 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 28/11/2023 4:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the entire exhaust system needed replacement, which was one
>>>>>>>>>>> of the factors in deciding to upgrade to a new car.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You should have come over when you had your chance. I'm not
>>>>>>>>>> too bad with pipes :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/album/Vp0jMP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every time you post boring, trivial pix like this historic
>>>>>>>>> collection it just begs the question, "So how about some pix
>>>>>>>>> of the fabled NA of the SIE Fraudster?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> can't if it never existed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you don't believe that he owned the business in the Altona
>>>>>>> Industrial Estate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt that he did. where's the evidence? not even photos..
>>>>>
>>>>> You claim to have run a successful business for 30 years, where's
>>>>> the evidence? not even photos..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do have photos
>>>>
>>> But you're not going to show them are you, so you expect us to
>>> believe you sight unseen.
>>
>> who is us? I don't care if you believe me or not. those who know
>> and/or trust me will.
>
> So you expect noddy to do what you're not willing to. Hypocrisy much?

how many times does it need to be explained to you? he has made specific
claims in this automotive discussion forum relating to his trade, and
therefore relevant knowledge, namely three apprenticeships and two trade
qualifications, as I understand it. he is merely being asked to show
evidence of that since his automotive knowledge and trade ability has
been called in question by those here who have done the training and
qualified as mechanics. I have not, nor have I made any specific claims
about my automotive knowledge or ability. I have merely mentioned that I
have some qualifications unrelated to the automotive trade. it is in no
way the same thing. blind freedy could understand this.

>
>>> Don't ask for that which you aren't willing to provide yourself.
>>
>>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 1/12/2023 11:31 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>> Whenever conversation gets even *slightly* technical you bail out
>> because it flies over your head.
>
> no, because I'm just not interested enough

You seem interested enough to make lots of posts about it, and
especially when the opportunity is there to make your usual smart arse
comments. But when it starts getting technical that's when your
"interest" suddenly and very quickly evaporates.

>> That's not a criticism of you personally, and is something most people
>> who are not into the nitty gritty of automotive tech would do. However
>> when you make comments like this where you declare you "have enough
>> sense/knowledge to know in most cases if it's relevant" is when you're
>> talking through your arse.
>
> that's nonsense. it's easy enough to determine relevancy. for example
> when Xeno explained steering geometry, one didn't need to be an Einstein
> to know that was relevant to your erroneous claim about centrifugal
> force straightening wheels.

Was it really? How so? :)

>> As you were told at the time Felix,
>
> by you! however, I take what you say with.. how do you put it?.. a
> mountain size grain of salt.

And yet you like to make a noise about being unbiased and capable of
independent thought.

>> A word of advice. If you *do* decide that you want to try this test,
>> and I doubt that you will but anyway, then make sure of two conditions
>> being met before you do: Firstly, ensure there is no other traffic or
>> pedestrians nearby, and secondly be prepared to use the handbrake to
>> stop as the regular service brakes will be *very* ineffective indeed :)

Presumably you're not keen to carry out this basic and completely
harmless test to see for yourself.

How surprising :)

>> I don't reply to him, I reply to you. But I can see that replying to
>> you is a waste of time in most cases.
>>
>
> why? because I don't accept your word as gospel

No, for the simple reason of the comment you mentioned above. Because
you take what I say "with a mountain size grain of salt" which, for the
record, is a comment I've never actually made :)

The point of this, which is clearly lost on you, is that it is usually a
complete waste of time explaining anything to you because you're usually
completely unwilling to be objective and unbiased. You have your moments
of brilliance on occasion, and the conversations we had a few days ago
where things like engine failures or new car running in processes were
discussed are good examples of that, but those "moments" are *extremely*
rare indeed and most of the time you seem *far* more content to carry on
like a total cock.

As you are now.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 1/12/2023 8:32 am, DannyG wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 30/11/2023 9:32 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 16:27:44 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>>
>>>> And he hasn't offered you *personally* any proof, that's more to the
>>>> point. Showing photos of his cars isn't proof. Showing photos of a
>>>> muffler system he's welded up isn't proof. In fact, all that does is
>>>> confirm he could get a job at Midas Mufflers. ;-)
>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> Whereas I couldn`t see you being employed *anywhere* you broken down
>>> old cunt.
>>
>> He *hasn't* been employed anywhere. Not for 25 years! But *still* he
>> manages somehow to remain "extremely trade relevant".
>>
>> Perhaps he could take a moment to explain to everyone how it is that
>> he achieves such a feat, as I'm unable to see how he does it :)
>
> Yep. Just embarrassing.
>
> To highlight the bleedin' obvious Fraudster... *You* proudly announced
> your retirement 20 years ago *AND* there is absolutely zero evidence of
> you working *anywhere* prior to that. Yet here you are! Banging your old
> "trade relevant" drum. It's just embarrassing.
>
>
> alvey
>
Darren forwent any claim to *trade relevance* when he wasn't considered
intelligent enough to sign on to any apprenticeship ever. That started
when he ran away from his year 9 exam. It's been downhill all the way
ever since!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 1/12/2023 9:16 am, Slasher wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 30/11/2023 4:21 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>
>>> you can't justify it as the claims are contradictory. obviously all
>>> or two of them are a lie
>>
>> Felix, why do you care?
>
> You're a hoot Fraudster! You expect people not to care about your
> abundant lies, but then you get all outraged & abusive when they doubt
> your "trade relevant" opinions.
>>
>> For the life of me I don't know why you have such a big problem
>> understanding this concept,
>
> Eh? What "concept"? It's not a "concept" that you are a liar & fraud.
> They're *facts*.
>
>> but I've told you *many* times now that I'm happy to engage you in
>> regular conversation.
>
> Another claim for which there is no supporting evidence...
>
>> In fact, we've spoken more in the last week than we have in a very
>> long time and to be honest I quite enjoyed it. You seemed to be
>> genuinely interested in the subject matter, and when you're *not*
>> sticking your tongue up Clueless Clasener's backside it makes for an
>> interesting exchange.
>>
>> However, if you want to play Groundhog day and re-live all this old
>> shit that's been done to death *thousands* of times already I'm just
>> not fucking interested.
>
> Yet not only do you keep responding, you keep throwing abuse on the fire.
>
>> I've got far better things to do than sit here and re-read the same
>> tired old posts
>
> Yep. If nobody is watching cars trundling down Fucker Cct then do they
> really exist?
>
>> that have already been regurgitated so many times that it would be
>> impossible to count,
>
> O Hypocrite be thy name! How many times in this thread have *you* (and
> your Enablers) dredged up old rubbish? Shedloads Buffo, shedloads.
>
>> and how you and your mates can find *any* of this to be entertaining
>> is quite beyond me.
>
> Jaysus Fraudster! What's "beyond" you dwarfs Jupiter.
>
>> Just like I cannot understand how none of you seem to be able to go a
>> *single* day without talking about me.
>
> You *cannot* be this stupid. You lie you fool head off, abuse the crap
> out of people, are a hypocrite of monstrous proportions, and yet you
> expect people to "not care". What I don't understand is how the bubble
> of fantasy that you've built around yourself has lasted this long. What
> with such an enormous prick inside it.
>
>
> alvey

Lucky I wasn't taking a swig of my coffee when I read your post! LOL
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 1/12/2023 9:58 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 8:15 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Your lack of understanding of the subject matter means that you may
>>> believe that something "sounds right" without having any idea if it's
>>> relevant.
>>
>> I may believe something sounds right or not, but I have enough
>> sense/knowledge to know in most cases if it's relevant
>
> No you don't :)
>
> Whenever conversation gets even *slightly* technical you bail out
> because it flies over your head. That's not a criticism of you
> personally, and is something most people who are not into the nitty
> gritty of automotive tech would do. However when you make comments like
> this where you declare you "have enough sense/knowledge to know in most
> cases if it's relevant" is when you're talking through your arse.
>
> You're the bloke who thought scheduled timing belt changes were an
> unnecessary con job, which pretty much highlights to anyone the limit of
> your mechanical understanding. With an understanding *that* shallow, it
> would be a practical impossibility for you to make an assessment of
> relevance on anything even *remotely* technical and you're only fooling
> yourself in thinking otherwise.
>
>>> It was about as simple a confirmation test as anyone could have made
>>> that was completely non destructive, but you chose not to do so
>>> because you were worried that it would "break you car" which was
>>> utter rubbish.
>>
>> no, I didn't want to mess with the car because it was under warranty
>
> As you were told at the time Felix, it was a completely non destructive
> test that no one other than you would have ever known about. But you can
> perform the test without needing to touch a single thing under the
> bonnet if you like, and you can even use your ZS to do so.
>
> Go find a quiet area with a slight elevation in the road that is steep
> enough to roll down in neutral. Park your car, switch off the engine and
> press the brake pedal a few times to remove the vacuum from the booster
> and then let the car roll down the incline with the engine off. Once
> you've reached a speed of about 25km/h or so, try stopping the car with
> the brake pedal and see how ineffective the brakes actually are compared
> to anything you remember from back in the day that didn't have power
> brakes.
>
> A word of advice. If you *do* decide that you want to try this test, and
> I doubt that you will but anyway, then make sure of two conditions being
> met before you do: Firstly, ensure there is no other traffic or
> pedestrians nearby, and secondly be prepared to use the handbrake to
> stop as the regular service brakes will be *very* ineffective indeed :)
>
>>> So instead, you remain ignorant to this very day, and there is
>>> absolutely *nothing* logical about that in the slightest.
>>>
>>
>> and that's all irrelevant to my original point that if you don't see
>> what Xeno posts you can't rebut it
>
> I couldn't care less about his posts Felix. I've spent more than enough
> time reading his bullshit to know that he is a clueless fake.

Beware Darren, your *M-I-R-R-O-R* is set to explode! Lucky it's not
powered by a lithium ion battery, it'd be a self generating blast!
>
> I don't reply to him, I reply to you. But I can see that replying to you
> is a waste of time in most cases.
>
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)