
To the one who gave me negative rep, I say this to you: Too bad.
Thanks, Blayde! There's some really neat stuff posted on that blog, like this acetylene-powered emergency light:
You see, this is why you link to the sources of interesting articles, because there's usually even more neat stuff to be found there.![]()
That's fine. But, sometimes, I don't like to give away sources. If I were making money off my posting, sure, I would have to, but there is no rule anywhere saying I have to give a source. And sometimes, I choose not to. Nor do I take credit with what I post if I had nothing to do with it.
No offense, but doing that is very rude. Try going to the photography section of the forums here, taking all the great photos there and reposting them on another forum without saying who made them, and see how many of our members still like you afterwards.
And I don't get why you wouldn't want to name the source in the first place.![]()
Besides, there is no possible reason as to why you wouldn't name the source. Frankly, it seem childish.
Other than that, it was a very interesting read, and i thank you for bringing it to me attention.
That's your opinion, not my intention. It's also my choice. I need not explain myself to anyone.
I never claimed to write it or profited from it, therefore, it is not.
I'm sorry, guys, there is no point in arguing this with me. I WILL NOT change my point of view. I ask you all who question me to please respect my opinon as I respect yours. We agree to disagee.
Please, enjoy what I provide and move on.
While doing some researh on the matter. I see that I'm am wrong is some area's.
1st. From now on, I will site the sources. This is NOT due to the fact of members here not liking that I did not do so before, but a product of the term in which "plagiarism" is defined. While I do not agree with it, I will do so from now on.
2nd. I'm a bit disappointed in the way both I and some others have handled this situation. I post what I do because I enjoy discussing cars with all of you here. I came off as brash and I appoligize. But, I do ask for those who have an issue with me, or any other member here, do not immediatly begin to try and destroy that persons reputation simply because you disagree with them. Send a PM and try to discuss it with them. Don't turn a persons thread into an argument. Most of us are adults here, we all, including myself, need to act as such.
I hope this clears things up.
Sheer automotive porn. Ferrari's need to be more like that. After the F50 things got soft.
nice post Johnnyracer, didn't know this of F40 prototype. love these machines!
God it looks good.
Please notice the 364-day gap between posts 31 and 32.
Hello very old post. But, yes, it's still an awesome read.
well, being new to this thread, this was new stuff to me. Sometimes old stuff are better than new news. my car fetises tend to be for era of 85-95, for some reason. don't know really why. maybe it was the era when the safety was not yet an issue, cars were lighter, or smth.
to be honest, didn't notice the time difference in answers.![]()
Well considering that the F50 used what amounted to a carbon fiber tub, which requires no additional strengthening from a roof panel like a typical monocoque would. The addition of a removable top would only be a few pounds at most. The additional weight mostly comes down to the engine, inclusion of an electronically controlled suspension, larger and stronger transmission, larger wheels and brakes, etc.
The unsprung weight on each corner is still very low at about 30lbs each (slightly less in front and more in back), not quite as good as the F40 but more durable and mostly down to bigger brakes.
my favorite Ferrari ever made i was given a model of one of these by my aunt when i was born and ive grown up loving it
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)