Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
> > > > young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
> > > >
> > > > :-D
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you looked,
> >
> > No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
>
> You made an ass of yourself again, then:
>

So your inference that I had looked was based on what if not my guess?

I think you need a look in that mirror.

> "Drive to Win"
> "Prepare to Win"
> "Tune to Win"
> "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
>
> All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
>
> "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
>
> "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
>
> "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
>
> "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth

I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.

What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of them on my
book shelf?

Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited picture of you
in your underwear or whatever it was.

You certainly are one dumb son of a bitch... and you don't mind who
knows it.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-04 2:12 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > News wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > ~misfit~ wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > build wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's getting ridiculous when the cars
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are put on slower low profile tyres
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply to go with a ridiculous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AIUI the new tyres are not even "low
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I have figured it wrongly the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rear tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > higher profile road cars) and the front
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > higher profile than most road cars.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I stand to be corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have figured it VERY wrongly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then correct me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > overall diameter) as 305/720R18 front and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 405/720R18
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Converting from one to the other involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > taking the overall diameter (720) subtracting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the wheel diameter (which you convert to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I thought that was probably what I had missed.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well caught.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If only you could manage to do it without
> > > > > > > > > > > > looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > A test you have yet to pass.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > :-D
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So I make them to be roughly:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they
> > > > > > > > > > > want road-relevance they don't use nomenclature
> > > > > > > > > > > that buyers of road car tyres understand).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is
> > > > > > > > > > that I was expecting relatively high numbers.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's not until I thought about what is being
> > > > > > > > > > calculated that I realised that the width of the
> > > > > > > > > > tyre on an F1 car means that for a similar profile
> > > > > > > > > > the sidewall is proportionally larger.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That is why these do not look like low profile road
> > > > > > > > > > tyres but more like the tyres on van the I use for
> > > > > > > > > > the dogs. 215/55 R16
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter
> > > > > > > > > > you get a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile
> > > > > > > > > > road car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a
> > > > > > > > > > 19.6"rim or to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would
> > > > > > > > > > have to be another inch bigger than that.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So while they look more like road tyres from the
> > > > > > > > > > side they do not resemble "fashionable" low profile
> > > > > > > > > > road tyres at all.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the
> > > > > > > technical information about F1 doesn't understand
> > > > > > > something so basic as how racing tire sizes are
> > > > > > > designated and how it relates to the way that road tire
> > > > > > > sizes are called out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on
> > > > > > reality and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying
> > > > > > little cunt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve
> > > > > > the last few days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well
> > > > > > beyond the scope of what is actually true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the
> > > > > > tyre profile referred to and from the way you have been
> > > > > > writing and how long it took you to pick up on my error
> > > > > > (despite spending your life on these groups) it doesn't
> > > > > > appear you knew any better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently
> > > > > > but don't let it define you.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd3f1yr7c1qlu3/IMG_4687.jpeg?dl=0>
> > > >
> > > > I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
> > > > young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
> > > >
> > > > :-D
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you looked, saw it was all books on vehicle dynamics, and
> > > punked.
> >
> > Another falsehood; you demonstrate your unintelligence and
> > dishonesty so readily.
>
> LOL
>
> "Drive to Win"
> "Prepare to Win"
> "Tune to Win"
> "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
>
> All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
>
> "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
>
> "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
>
> "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
>
> "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
>

On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
>>>>> young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-D
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you looked,
>>>
>>> No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
>>
>> You made an ass of yourself again, then:
>>
>
> So your inference that I had looked was based on what if not my guess?
>
> I think you need a look in that mirror.
>
>> "Drive to Win"
>> "Prepare to Win"
>> "Tune to Win"
>> "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
>>
>> All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
>>
>> "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
>>
>> "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
>>
>> "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
>>
>> "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
>
> I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
>
> What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of them on my
> book shelf?

That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably knew what
you were talking about on that subject.

>
> Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited picture of you
> in your underwear or whatever it was.

It was a picture of those books.

On 2022-02-04 11:32 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-04 2:12 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's getting ridiculous when the cars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are put on slower low profile tyres
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply to go with a ridiculous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AIUI the new tyres are not even "low
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> profile".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless I have figured it wrongly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rear tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher profile road cars) and the front
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a higher AR at 305/86 R18 (very much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher profile than most road cars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I stand to be corrected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have figured it VERY wrongly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then correct me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall diameter) as 305/720R18 front and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 405/720R18
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Converting from one to the other involves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking the overall diameter (720) subtracting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wheel diameter (which you convert to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> millimetres, so 457.2) then you divide by 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that was probably what I had missed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well caught.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If only you could manage to do it without
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A test you have yet to pass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I make them to be roughly:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the front.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if they
>>>>>>>>>>>> want road-relevance they don't use nomenclature
>>>>>>>>>>>> that buyers of road car tyres understand).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is
>>>>>>>>>>> that I was expecting relatively high numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not until I thought about what is being
>>>>>>>>>>> calculated that I realised that the width of the
>>>>>>>>>>> tyre on an F1 car means that for a similar profile
>>>>>>>>>>> the sidewall is proportionally larger.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is why these do not look like low profile road
>>>>>>>>>>> tyres but more like the tyres on van the I use for
>>>>>>>>>>> the dogs. 215/55 R16
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter
>>>>>>>>>>> you get a 16" rim so pretty much dead on analogy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile
>>>>>>>>>>> road car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a
>>>>>>>>>>> 19.6"rim or to look like a 225/40 R19 the rims would
>>>>>>>>>>> have to be another inch bigger than that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So while they look more like road tyres from the
>>>>>>>>>>> side they do not resemble "fashionable" low profile
>>>>>>>>>>> road tyres at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A common admission: "don't understand a word you utter."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much of the
>>>>>>>> technical information about F1 doesn't understand
>>>>>>>> something so basic as how racing tire sizes are
>>>>>>>> designated and how it relates to the way that road tire
>>>>>>>> sizes are called out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold on
>>>>>>> reality and/or are fabricating in order to be an annoying
>>>>>>> little cunt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning curve
>>>>>>> the last few days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is well
>>>>>>> beyond the scope of what is actually true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what the
>>>>>>> tyre profile referred to and from the way you have been
>>>>>>> writing and how long it took you to pick up on my error
>>>>>>> (despite spending your life on these groups) it doesn't
>>>>>>> appear you knew any better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace frequently
>>>>>>> but don't let it define you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd3f1yr7c1qlu3/IMG_4687.jpeg?dl=0>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
>>>>> young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-D
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you looked, saw it was all books on vehicle dynamics, and
>>>> punked.
>>>
>>> Another falsehood; you demonstrate your unintelligence and
>>> dishonesty so readily.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> "Drive to Win"
>> "Prepare to Win"
>> "Tune to Win"
>> "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
>>
>> All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
>>
>> "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
>>
>> "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
>>
>> "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
>>
>> "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
>>
>
> So you admit your falsehood.

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:15:47 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> It was a picture of those books.

tit

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:17:36 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> That's a pertinent fact.

tit

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:15:47 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> It was a picture of those books.

do you have access to a gold star?

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:15:47 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> It was a picture of those books.

fuck me gently

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:15:47 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> It was a picture of those books.

lol

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-04 11:32 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-04 2:12 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-01 1:06 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-01 10:24 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > News wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2/1/2022 9:03 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > ~misfit~ wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/02/2022 1:30 pm, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-01-30 9:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-01-23 5:24 a.m., Bigbird
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > build wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's getting ridiculous when the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cars are put on slower low
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile tyres simply to go with a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ridiculous fashion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AIUI the new tyres are not even "low
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I have figured it wrongly the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rear tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > higher profile road cars) and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > front a higher AR at 305/86 R18
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (very much higher profile than most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > road cars.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I stand to be corrected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have figured it VERY wrongly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then correct me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So F1 tires are sized (in mm for width and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall diameter) as 305/720R18 front and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 405/720R18
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Converting from one to the other involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > taking the overall diameter (720)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subtracting the wheel diameter (which you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convert to millimetres, so 457.2) then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you divide by 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought that was probably what I had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well caught.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If only you could manage to do it without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking a fucking ASSHOLE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A test you have yet to pass.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-D
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So I make them to be roughly:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 405/32R18 on the rear and 305/43R18 on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > front.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I stand to be corrected (and wonder why, if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they want road-relevance they don't use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nomenclature that buyers of road car tyres
> > > > > > > > > > > > > understand).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think the reason I didn't pick up the error is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that I was expecting relatively high numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's not until I thought about what is being
> > > > > > > > > > > > calculated that I realised that the width of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > tyre on an F1 car means that for a similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > profile the sidewall is proportionally larger.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is why these do not look like low profile
> > > > > > > > > > > > road tyres but more like the tyres on van the I
> > > > > > > > > > > > use for the dogs. 215/55 R16
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre
> > > > > > > > > > > > diameter you get a 16" rim so pretty much dead
> > > > > > > > > > > > on analogy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low
> > > > > > > > > > > > profile road car tyre (say a 225/45R18) you'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > have to have a 19.6"rim or to look like a
> > > > > > > > > > > > 225/40 R19 the rims would have to be another
> > > > > > > > > > > > inch bigger than that.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So while they look more like road tyres from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > side they do not resemble "fashionable" low
> > > > > > > > > > > > profile road tyres at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The rare admission: didn't understand the formula.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A common admission: "don't understand a word you
> > > > > > > > > > utter."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It is amusing that a guy who wants to argue so much
> > > > > > > > > of the technical information about F1 doesn't
> > > > > > > > > understand something so basic as how racing tire
> > > > > > > > > sizes are designated and how it relates to the way
> > > > > > > > > that road tire sizes are called out.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What a ridiculous sentence. You have a very loose hold
> > > > > > > > on reality and/or are fabricating in order to be an
> > > > > > > > annoying little cunt.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's pretty clear you have been on a steep learning
> > > > > > > > curve the last few days.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or expertise that is
> > > > > > > > well beyond the scope of what is actually true.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Until this thread was started I hadn't considered what
> > > > > > > > the tyre profile referred to and from the way you have
> > > > > > > > been writing and how long it took you to pick up on my
> > > > > > > > error (despite spending your life on these groups) it
> > > > > > > > doesn't appear you knew any better.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lying is a repugnant trait, one that you embrace
> > > > > > > > frequently but don't let it define you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd3f1yr7c1qlu3/IMG_4687.jpeg?dl=0>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
> > > > > > young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-D
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So you looked, saw it was all books on vehicle dynamics, and
> > > > > punked.
> > > >
> > > > Another falsehood; you demonstrate your unintelligence and
> > > > dishonesty so readily.
> > >
> > > LOL
> > >
> > > "Drive to Win"
> > > "Prepare to Win"
> > > "Tune to Win"
> > > "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
> > >
> > > All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
> > >
> > > "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
> > >
> > > "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
> > >
> > > "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
> > >
> > > "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
> > >
> >
> > So you admit your falsehood.
>
> What falsehood would that be?
>
> >
> > > Just a few of the books salient to the topic I own and have read
> > > and re-read over the years.
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > A claim proving what of any relevance exactly?
>
> That when it comes to knowing what tire profile is...
>
> ...I most definitely did.
>

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
> > > > > > young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-D
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So you looked,
> > > >
> > > > No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
> > >
> > > You made an ass of yourself again, then:
> > >
> >
> > So your inference that I had looked was based on what if not my
> > guess?
> >
> > I think you need a look in that mirror.
> >
> > > "Drive to Win"
> > > "Prepare to Win"
> > > "Tune to Win"
> > > "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
> > >
> > > All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
> > >
> > > "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
> > >
> > > "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
> > >
> > > "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
> > >
> > > "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
> >
> > I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
> >
> > What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of them on
> > my book shelf?
>
> That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably knew
> what you were talking about on that subject.
>

....and you'd be wrong.

> >
> > Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited picture of
> > you in your underwear or whatever it was.
>
> It was a picture of those books.

Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it being a
picture of you in your underwear?

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>> Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have actually
>>>> known what my knowledge in this area was when you made those
>>>> statements...
>>>>
>>>> ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
>>> Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to you.
>> What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
>>
>> What "lies"?
>>
>> I knew what tire profile was...
>>
>> ...you were clueless.
>>
> Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
>
> I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had reason to
> calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
>

Nope.

You didn't "do the math wrong".

You failed at the basic understanding that "profile" in the context of
tire sizes refers to the height of the tires SECTION expressed a
percentage of the width of that same section...

....AND that that necessarily means that there is two times that height
in the overall diameter of a tire.

Wheel diameter plus TWO times section height.

That is a failure of ignorance.

On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear with
>>>>>>> young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you looked,
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
>>>>
>>>> You made an ass of yourself again, then:
>>>>
>>>
>>> So your inference that I had looked was based on what if not my
>>> guess?
>>>
>>> I think you need a look in that mirror.
>>>
>>>> "Drive to Win"
>>>> "Prepare to Win"
>>>> "Tune to Win"
>>>> "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
>>>>
>>>> All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
>>>>
>>>> "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
>>>>
>>>> "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
>>>>
>>>> "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
>>>>
>>>> "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
>>>
>>> I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
>>>
>>> What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of them on
>>> my book shelf?
>>
>> That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably knew
>> what you were talking about on that subject.
>>
>
> ...and you'd be wrong.
>
>>>
>>> Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited picture of
>>> you in your underwear or whatever it was.
>>
>> It was a picture of those books.
>
> Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it being a
> picture of you in your underwear?
>

A lot of talk, but it still boils down to you being unable to apologize
for being completely wrong about the depth of my knowledge on this
subject...

....which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have actually
> > > > > known what my knowledge in this area was when you made those
> > > > > statements...
> > > > >
> > > > > ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
> > > > Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to
> > > > you.
> > > What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
> > >
> > > What "lies"?
> > >
> > > I knew what tire profile was...
> > >
> > > ...you were clueless.
> > >
> > Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
> >
> > I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had reason to
> > calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
> >
>
> Nope.
>
> You didn't "do the math wrong".

If you did one thing correctly you identified where my mathematics was
at fault.

(cute that, having just picked you up for your incorrect use of quotes,
you demonstrate again that you are clueless when it comes to quoting)

>
> You failed at the basic understanding that "profile" in the context
> of tire sizes refers to the height of the tires SECTION expressed a
> percentage of the width of that same section...
>

Sorry, you are making things up again.

It's like you can't help but use falsehoods to prove what a dishonest
ignorant cunt you are.

> ...AND that that necessarily means that there is two times that
> height in the overall diameter of a tire.
>
> Wheel diameter plus TWO times section height.
>
> That is a failure of ignorance.

Oh, I'd say that is a perfect demonstration of YOUR ignorance.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear
> > > > > > > > with young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > :-D
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So you looked,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
> > > > >
> > > > > You made an ass of yourself again, then:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So your inference that I had looked was based on what if not my
> > > > guess?
> > > >
> > > > I think you need a look in that mirror.
> > > >
> > > > > "Drive to Win"
> > > > > "Prepare to Win"
> > > > > "Tune to Win"
> > > > > "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
> > > > >
> > > > > All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
> > > > >
> > > > > "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
> > > > >
> > > > > "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
> > > > >
> > > > > "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
> > > >
> > > > I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
> > > >
> > > > What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of
> > > > them on my book shelf?
> > >
> > > That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably
> > > knew what you were talking about on that subject.
> > >
> >
> > ...and you'd be wrong.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited picture
> > > > of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
> > >
> > > It was a picture of those books.
> >
> > Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it being a
> > picture of you in your underwear?
> >
>
> A lot of talk,

Lol, you can do better than that; it is a lot of making you look stupid
and ignorant.

> but it still boils down to you being unable to
> apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my knowledge
> on this subject...
>
> ...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.

What a ridiculous non-sequitur.

What it boils down to is you proving that you are an ignorant cunt who
frequently reverts to falsehoods and misrepresentations.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>> Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have actually
>>>>>> known what my knowledge in this area was when you made those
>>>>>> statements...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
>>>>> Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to
>>>>> you.
>>>> What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
>>>>
>>>> What "lies"?
>>>>
>>>> I knew what tire profile was...
>>>>
>>>> ...you were clueless.
>>>>
>>> Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
>>>
>>> I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had reason to
>>> calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> You didn't "do the math wrong".
>
> If you did one thing correctly you identified where my mathematics was
> at fault.

No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in the context
of tires was wrong.

If it had actually been a concept you understood, you would have done
the math differently.

On 2022-02-08 1:33 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have no interest of pictures of you in your underwear
>>>>>>>>> with young boys or whatever your untitled post might be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> :-D
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you looked,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You made an ass of yourself again, then:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So your inference that I had looked was based on what if not my
>>>>> guess?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you need a look in that mirror.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Drive to Win"
>>>>>> "Prepare to Win"
>>>>>> "Tune to Win"
>>>>>> "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
>>>>>
>>>>> I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of
>>>>> them on my book shelf?
>>>>
>>>> That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably
>>>> knew what you were talking about on that subject.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...and you'd be wrong.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited picture
>>>>> of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
>>>>
>>>> It was a picture of those books.
>>>
>>> Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it being a
>>> picture of you in your underwear?
>>>
>>
>> A lot of talk,
>
> Lol, you can do better than that; it is a lot of making you look stupid
> and ignorant.
>
>> but it still boils down to you being unable to
>> apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my knowledge
>> on this subject...
>>
>> ...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.
>
> What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
>
> What it boils down to is you proving that you are an ignorant cunt who
> frequently reverts to falsehoods and misrepresentations.
>
>

I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.

Deal with it.

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.

you brain dead fucking idiot

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have
> > > > > > > actually known what my knowledge in this area was when
> > > > > > > you made those statements...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
> > > > > > Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to
> > > > > > you.
> > > > > What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
> > > > >
> > > > > What "lies"?
> > > > >
> > > > > I knew what tire profile was...
> > > > >
> > > > > ...you were clueless.
> > > > >
> > > > Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
> > > >
> > > > I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had
> > > > reason to calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not
> > > > ignorance.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > You didn't "do the math wrong".
> >
> > If you did one thing correctly you identified where my mathematics
> > was at fault.
>
> No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in the
> context of tires was wrong.
>

Wrong.

Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty good idea.

I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and
miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width.

Claiming you know otherwise is a falsehood; a damn lie when repeatedly
asserted as you have.

Something you have made a habit of.

You are literally an habitual liar.

> If it had actually been a concept you understood, you would have done
> the math differently.

Wrong. You really are that stupid.

:-)

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-08 1:33 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I have no interest of pictures of you in your
> > > > > > > > > > underwear with young boys or whatever your untitled
> > > > > > > > > > post might be.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > :-D
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So you looked,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You made an ass of yourself again, then:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So your inference that I had looked was based on what if
> > > > > > not my guess?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think you need a look in that mirror.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Drive to Win"
> > > > > > > "Prepare to Win"
> > > > > > > "Tune to Win"
> > > > > > > "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of
> > > > > > them on my book shelf?
> > > > >
> > > > > That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably
> > > > > knew what you were talking about on that subject.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ...and you'd be wrong.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited
> > > > > > picture of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was a picture of those books.
> > > >
> > > > Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it being a
> > > > picture of you in your underwear?
> > > >
> > >
> > > A lot of talk,
> >
> > Lol, you can do better than that; it is a lot of making you look
> > stupid and ignorant.
> >
> > > but it still boils down to you being unable to
> > > apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my
> > > knowledge on this subject...
> > >
> > > ...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.
> >
> > What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
> >
> > What it boils down to is you proving that you are an ignorant cunt
> > who frequently reverts to falsehoods and misrepresentations.
> >
> >
>
> I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.
>
> Deal with it.

You are an habitual liar and have misrepresented me and my posts like
the habitual liar you have proven to be.

I am dealing with that!

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>> Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have
>>>>>>>> actually known what my knowledge in this area was when
>>>>>>>> you made those statements...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
>>>>>>> Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so easily to
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>> What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What "lies"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I knew what tire profile was...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...you were clueless.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had
>>>>> reason to calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not
>>>>> ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't "do the math wrong".
>>>
>>> If you did one thing correctly you identified where my mathematics
>>> was at fault.
>>
>> No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in the
>> context of tires was wrong.
>>
>
> Wrong.
>
> Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty good idea.
>
> I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and
> miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width.

No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based on
subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to understand
that since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to overall tire
section width that you would need to allow for the fact that there are
two instances of the sidewall height in overall diameter.

If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your
ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.

On 2022-02-09 11:45 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-08 1:33 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I have no interest of pictures of you in your
>>>>>>>>>>> underwear with young boys or whatever your untitled
>>>>>>>>>>> post might be.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you looked,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You made an ass of yourself again, then:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So your inference that I had looked was based on what if
>>>>>>> not my guess?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you need a look in that mirror.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Drive to Win"
>>>>>>>> "Prepare to Win"
>>>>>>>> "Tune to Win"
>>>>>>>> "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would you have inferred if I had sent you a picture of
>>>>>>> them on my book shelf?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so probably
>>>>>> knew what you were talking about on that subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and you'd be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited
>>>>>>> picture of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was a picture of those books.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it being a
>>>>> picture of you in your underwear?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A lot of talk,
>>>
>>> Lol, you can do better than that; it is a lot of making you look
>>> stupid and ignorant.
>>>
>>>> but it still boils down to you being unable to
>>>> apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my
>>>> knowledge on this subject...
>>>>
>>>> ...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.
>>>
>>> What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
>>>
>>> What it boils down to is you proving that you are an ignorant cunt
>>> who frequently reverts to falsehoods and misrepresentations.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.
>>
>> Deal with it.
>
> You are an habitual liar and have misrepresented me and my posts like
> the habitual liar you have proven to be.

No, I haven't.

Your ignorance of the subject has led you to misinterpret things I've
said and you've assumed they were lies because you have almost no clue
about this stuff.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 2:06:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> No, I haven't.

you sad fuck

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 2:01:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your
> ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.

blow yourself

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have
> > > > > > > > > actually known what my knowledge in this area was when
> > > > > > > > > you made those statements...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
> > > > > > > > Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so
> > > > > > > > easily to you.
> > > > > > > What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What "lies"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I knew what tire profile was...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...you were clueless.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had
> > > > > > reason to calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not
> > > > > > ignorance.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope.
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn't "do the math wrong".
> > > >
> > > > If you did one thing correctly you identified where my
> > > > mathematics was at fault.
> > >
> > > No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in the
> > > context of tires was wrong.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty good idea.
> >
> > I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and
> > miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
> > width.
>
> No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based on
> subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to
> understand that since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to
> overall tire section width that you would need to allow for the fact
> that there are two instances of the sidewall height in overall
> diameter.
>

Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.

There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.

> If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your
> ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.

You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you what I did and
you lied like the lying cunt you are.

There is no alternative no matter how much you choose to invent,
misrepresent or lie.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!