do you think Cen can pull it off?
02-28-2010, 05:13 PM
#61
Tech Master
Prove me wrong by doing a video that shows a stock CT4 doing 73 miles an hour going thru a electronic timing system not a radar gun.
02-28-2010, 05:20 PM
#62
You are the one who is in denial do you think Cen would send a unprepared car for them to test?? If you do you are an idiot. The box says 73 mph the box said nothing about margin of error so that is bullshit. 67 mph is 67 mph not 70 mph or 74 mph so you got owned. Now go back to smoking your crack pipe you crack head.
You lost all credibility right there.
Sure, after you prove that a CT4 tops out at 50 mph stock.
02-28-2010, 05:22 PM
#63
Tech Master
BLAB, BLAB, BLAB,BLAB!!! You got owned !! The truth is right in front of you in the rc car action article and you are too stupid to comprehend what you just finish reading . You can't debate with a fool and that is what you are . So you can continue this argument with yourself.
You got owned !! The truth is right in front of you in the rc car action article and you are too stupid to comprehend what you just finish reading . You can't debate with a fool and that is what you are . So you can continue this argument with yourself.
02-28-2010, 05:25 PM
#64
02-28-2010, 05:28 PM
#65
Tech Master
No you don't know what 50 miles an hour looks like.
02-28-2010, 05:29 PM
#66
02-28-2010, 05:30 PM
#67
Tech Master
Maybe the Ct4 was going faster than 50 miles an hour I don't know but my main point was the car was definately not going 70mph. The Article in RC CAR ACTION supports my claim they reached 67 mph. 67 mph is not 70 mph. If you think a stock CT4 can do 70+ mph prove me wrong by doing a video of the car going thru a electronic speed trap to verify this speed no radar gun.
Last edited by nitrohead5300; 03-01-2010 at 05:36 AM.
03-02-2010, 12:51 AM
#68
The same cars coming off the assembly line aren't going to have identical performance. Just like hp ratings on engines vary on the same model cars in real size cars. Just because the specs say 160hp on a Toyota Corolla doesn't mean that's exactly what you're gonna get if you dyno it. Some cars off of the same assembly line will have higher hp than 150hp some will be lower some will be spot on. CAN YOU GRASP THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT???
ONCE AGAIN since you like to gloss over the relevent points with your repeating of the same nonsensical doubting BS.
Two tests done by two different parties at different times and locations which means:
A. Different road conditions
B. Different ambient temps
C. Different altitudes
D. Different cars of the same model - engines will have small variations in power output
F. Nitro fuel concentrations was unknown on CEN test
G. One test was done with the body the other test was done without - weight and aero becomes a factor
E. Different radar guns with different margins of errors.
You simply cannot CHERRY PICK RC Car's number to conclude that their results are more realistic than CEN's result. That's just plain stupid. You need to consider BOTH results and maybe take the average between the two.
These runs won't be identical....duh...they were done under different conditions. Get that through your bonehead.
It's pretty damn obvious that the CT4 is capable of going much faster than 50 mph even if you want to take RC Car mag's test as the END ALL BE ALL.
You trying to tell me you can tell the difference between 67 mph and 73 mph from watching a bad quality YT video???
I mean if that's the case then how come you didn't say 67, 68, 69, 70 mph but instead chose a lowball of 50 mph???
When you made that SELF-OWNAGE statement you lost all credibility dude.
In other words if you were so sure that a CT4 can't go above 67 mph how come you didn't say 66 or 65 or 64 mph and instead said 50 mph??
That's right you had ZERO CLUE how fast the car was going so you CANNOT say it was going only 67 mph in CEN's video...LMFAO!!!
How do you know it wasn't going 69, 70, 71 mph in that video????
The way I see it you're just pulling numbers out of our @ss because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW FAST the car was going. You don't even know if it was going slower or faster than 67 mph!!!
Do you even know what a small RC car going 50 mph vs 67 mph looks like? Apparently you don't.
And please stop repeating the same nonsensical BS, the burden of proof is yours not mine.
Let me ask you a question....now that you admit you were WAY OFF when you ass-umed it was going 50 mph.
How fast DO YOU THINK the car was going in CEN's video if not 73 mph???
Answer that question then maybe you have a chance of regaining some credibility.
ONCE AGAIN since you like to gloss over the relevent points with your repeating of the same nonsensical doubting BS.
Two tests done by two different parties at different times and locations which means:
A. Different road conditions
B. Different ambient temps
C. Different altitudes
D. Different cars of the same model - engines will have small variations in power output
F. Nitro fuel concentrations was unknown on CEN test
G. One test was done with the body the other test was done without - weight and aero becomes a factor
E. Different radar guns with different margins of errors.
You simply cannot CHERRY PICK RC Car's number to conclude that their results are more realistic than CEN's result. That's just plain stupid. You need to consider BOTH results and maybe take the average between the two.
These runs won't be identical....duh...they were done under different conditions. Get that through your bonehead.
It's pretty damn obvious that the CT4 is capable of going much faster than 50 mph even if you want to take RC Car mag's test as the END ALL BE ALL.
You trying to tell me you can tell the difference between 67 mph and 73 mph from watching a bad quality YT video???
I mean if that's the case then how come you didn't say 67, 68, 69, 70 mph but instead chose a lowball of 50 mph???
When you made that SELF-OWNAGE statement you lost all credibility dude.
In other words if you were so sure that a CT4 can't go above 67 mph how come you didn't say 66 or 65 or 64 mph and instead said 50 mph??
That's right you had ZERO CLUE how fast the car was going so you CANNOT say it was going only 67 mph in CEN's video...LMFAO!!!
How do you know it wasn't going 69, 70, 71 mph in that video????
The way I see it you're just pulling numbers out of our @ss because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW FAST the car was going. You don't even know if it was going slower or faster than 67 mph!!!
Do you even know what a small RC car going 50 mph vs 67 mph looks like? Apparently you don't.
And please stop repeating the same nonsensical BS, the burden of proof is yours not mine.
Let me ask you a question....now that you admit you were WAY OFF when you ass-umed it was going 50 mph.
How fast DO YOU THINK the car was going in CEN's video if not 73 mph???
Answer that question then maybe you have a chance of regaining some credibility.
Last edited by PaPeRo; 03-02-2010 at 05:07 AM.
03-02-2010, 04:40 AM
#69
what about engine tuning. the test they did in rc action mag could off had a different engine tune to the one they used in the youtube vid?
03-02-2010, 05:16 AM
#70
You obviously understand the issues being presented here. Now if we could get Mr stubborn Nitrohead to see the light maybe we'd be able to make some progress.
03-02-2010, 05:32 AM
#71
Tech Master
03-02-2010, 05:36 AM
#72
Tech Master
The same cars coming off the assembly line aren't going to have identical performance. Just like hp ratings on engines vary on the same model cars in real size cars. Just because the specs say 160hp on a Toyota Corolla doesn't mean that's exactly what you're gonna get if you dyno it. Some cars off of the same assembly line will have higher hp than 150hp some will be lower some will be spot on. CAN YOU GRASP THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT???
ONCE AGAIN since you like to gloss over the relevent points with your repeating of the same nonsensical doubting BS.
Two tests done by two different parties at different times and locations which means:
A. Different road conditions
B. Different ambient temps
C. Different altitudes
D. Different cars of the same model - engines will have small variations in power output
F. Nitro fuel concentrations was unknown on CEN test
G. One test was done with the body the other test was done without - weight and aero becomes a factor
E. Different radar guns with different margins of errors.
You simply cannot CHERRY PICK RC Car's number to conclude that their results are more realistic than CEN's result. That's just plain stupid. You need to consider BOTH results and maybe take the average between the two.
These runs won't be identical....duh...they were done under different conditions. Get that through your bonehead.
It's pretty damn obvious that the CT4 is capable of going much faster than 50 mph even if you want to take RC Car mag's test as the END ALL BE ALL.
You trying to tell me you can tell the difference between 67 mph and 73 mph from watching a bad quality YT video???
I mean if that's the case then how come you didn't say 67, 68, 69, 70 mph but instead chose a lowball of 50 mph???
When you made that SELF-OWNAGE statement you lost all credibility dude.
In other words if you were so sure that a CT4 can't go above 67 mph how come you didn't say 66 or 65 or 64 mph and instead said 50 mph??
That's right you had ZERO CLUE how fast the car was going so you CANNOT say it was going only 67 mph in CEN's video...LMFAO!!!
How do you know it wasn't going 69, 70, 71 mph in that video????
The way I see it you're just pulling numbers out of our @ss because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW FAST the car was going. You don't even know if it was going slower or faster than 67 mph!!!
Do you even know what a small RC car going 50 mph vs 67 mph looks like? Apparently you don't.
And please stop repeating the same nonsensical BS, the burden of proof is yours not mine.
Let me ask you a question....now that you admit you were WAY OFF when you ass-umed it was going 50 mph.
How fast DO YOU THINK the car was going in CEN's video if not 73 mph???
Answer that question then maybe you have a chance of regaining some credibility.
ONCE AGAIN since you like to gloss over the relevent points with your repeating of the same nonsensical doubting BS.
Two tests done by two different parties at different times and locations which means:
A. Different road conditions
B. Different ambient temps
C. Different altitudes
D. Different cars of the same model - engines will have small variations in power output
F. Nitro fuel concentrations was unknown on CEN test
G. One test was done with the body the other test was done without - weight and aero becomes a factor
E. Different radar guns with different margins of errors.
You simply cannot CHERRY PICK RC Car's number to conclude that their results are more realistic than CEN's result. That's just plain stupid. You need to consider BOTH results and maybe take the average between the two.
These runs won't be identical....duh...they were done under different conditions. Get that through your bonehead.
It's pretty damn obvious that the CT4 is capable of going much faster than 50 mph even if you want to take RC Car mag's test as the END ALL BE ALL.
You trying to tell me you can tell the difference between 67 mph and 73 mph from watching a bad quality YT video???
I mean if that's the case then how come you didn't say 67, 68, 69, 70 mph but instead chose a lowball of 50 mph???
When you made that SELF-OWNAGE statement you lost all credibility dude.
In other words if you were so sure that a CT4 can't go above 67 mph how come you didn't say 66 or 65 or 64 mph and instead said 50 mph??
That's right you had ZERO CLUE how fast the car was going so you CANNOT say it was going only 67 mph in CEN's video...LMFAO!!!
How do you know it wasn't going 69, 70, 71 mph in that video????
The way I see it you're just pulling numbers out of our @ss because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW FAST the car was going. You don't even know if it was going slower or faster than 67 mph!!!
Do you even know what a small RC car going 50 mph vs 67 mph looks like? Apparently you don't.
And please stop repeating the same nonsensical BS, the burden of proof is yours not mine.
Let me ask you a question....now that you admit you were WAY OFF when you ass-umed it was going 50 mph.
How fast DO YOU THINK the car was going in CEN's video if not 73 mph???
Answer that question then maybe you have a chance of regaining some credibility.
Last edited by nitrohead5300; 03-02-2010 at 05:58 AM.
03-02-2010, 05:47 AM
#73
Tech Master
Look, PAPero you are wasting your time your arguments have not convinced me that a box stock CT4 can do 70+ mph. Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that. You have not prove your point to me, and this thread is a waste of time you cant even get Cen products here because none of the hobbyshops will carry them because they are pos I am finish with this ridiculous discussion.
Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that. You have not prove your point to me, and this thread is a waste of time you cant even get Cen products here because none of the hobbyshops will carry them because they are pos I am finish with this ridiculous discussion.
Last edited by nitrohead5300; 03-02-2010 at 06:10 AM.
03-02-2010, 06:58 AM
#74
Why are you guys arguing about a r/c car that is way down on the lower rungs of the r/c ladder? Who cares if the car can do 50mph, 70+ mph, or 100mph; the car is not of high quality anyway. You never see CEN cars at big races, no one is sponsored by them, and you don't even see any at most club race venues. I am shocked that they sell enough of these to even still be in business. The few that I have seen come into my LHS in Dallas were so much of a pile, the owners literally threw them in the trash and bought a better quality car (which you can easily get parts in your LHS). I have heard of the phrase "kicking a dead horse" but I never thought I would see it in action like I have on this thread.
03-02-2010, 08:13 AM
#75
Tech Adept
You can't paint a turd, and that is exactly what CEN are. No matter how big the engine is, whether the video is speeded up or slowed down, they are still just a turd.