• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Weight Saving Tip

jeremytaylor said:
No, get her to lie flat in the front while you're driving, That should bring a smile to your face! :D :D
that would be dangerous!!! ;)

With the atmosphere as it is at home today, it'll be me lying flat soon (in a coffin when She who must be obeyed murders me).

Paternity leave isn't all it's cracked up to be, sitting around all day not being allowed to do anything apart from feeding/changing nappies...is it any wonder I'm getting on her nerves, I'M BORED !!!

Another 3 weeks of this :crazy:
....at least I get to look at the laptop occasionally and check out this forum :)

Hmm, sorry to drift off topic, will try to pull myself together.
 
Well so far I haven't used the fold down rear seats in my car but as they're heavier than those in a Corsa I must go even faster when I fold them flat.

0-60 in 5 seconds here I come (even more when the car is clean).

Sorry, must sign off now my tablets have rolled under the table!:crazy: :crazy:
 
does anyone now where i can get rear seats to the SLK please. preferably folding ones so as can then reduce the weight of the car and go faster still.

surely if you reduce the weight and dont bother going faster, you will reduce your fuel consumption?

would this work if you install extra rows?
 
Bloody váuxhall drivers ;) :devil:

Just imagine what a V-Class would be like.

V63 AMG anyone?
 
wallingd said:
Just imagine what a V-Class would be like.

V63 AMG anyone?
***NEWS FLASH***

Mercedes have built a new 250mph+ * Supercar...
DCP_5003.JPG

* - all seats must be folded flat to achieve top speed figure


Mercedes is also looking at a new design of aircraft based on the revolutionary 'flat seat weight reduction' technology.
sydney2.jpg

Artists Impression

:D This thread could roll and roll :devil:

S.
 
It surprised me how articulate this guy was - well written, but barking mad!!
 
jeremytaylor said:
Fatherhood gets a whole lot better, trust me ...


any idea when?

our daughter is 8 going on 18 with a smart answer and a "you don't understand" reply for everything we tell her and our 10 year old son knows everything whilst managing to be a complete muppet who excelled himself by getting sent home from school yesterday for making chicken noises all the way through the lessons.

If the future of the world is in the hands of todays children - we're stuffed :)

Andy
 
A lighter car is deffo the way to go !

I have heard that the engine and gearbox are the heaviest part of a car, so if you were to remove them then the car would be much lighter and the 0-60 mph figure would probably be reduced by ------------------DOH!!!! :crazy:
 
grober said:
I have heard that the engine and gearbox are the heaviest part of a car, so if you were to remove them then the car would be much lighter and the 0-60 mph figure would probably be reduced by ------------------DOH!!!! :crazy:


aha - a very valid point.....

but after you'd removed them what would happen if you were to put them on the folded down back seats? Surely that would double the benefit?

Andy
 
Actually he is technically correct about the horizontal weight thing, that is if he could find some scales that were precise enough. Gravity is not constant. Different parts of the Earth have a different value, and gravity also decreases with altitude.

A vertical object will have a smaller g value at the top compared to the bottom. The same object will, if laid horizontally, share the fractionally infinitessimally higher g value at the base, and thus weigh more (F=MG).

Another option would be to get weighed at the centre of the earth where you would be weightless, or if you want a slight weight reduction (extremely unmeasurable), get weighed on top of a very tall skyscraper. Alternatively move to the equater where g is smaller due to the Earths spin.

Remember to use spring scales, as counter balance weights are really only measuring mass.
 
So all performance testing must be done on the part of the Earth where the gravity is the least :D.
 
Apial said:
Actually he is technically correct about the horizontal weight thing, that is if he could find some scales that were precise enough. Gravity is not constant. Different parts of the Earth have a different value, and gravity also decreases with altitude.

A vertical object will have a smaller g value at the top compared to the bottom. The same object will, if laid horizontally, share the fractionally infinitessimally higher g value at the base, and thus weigh more (F=MG).

Another option would be to get weighed at the centre of the earth where you would be weightless, or if you want a slight weight reduction (extremely unmeasurable), get weighed on top of a very tall skyscraper. Alternatively move to the equater where g is smaller due to the Earths spin.

Remember to use spring scales, as counter balance weights are really only measuring mass.

Don't forget that our Vauxhall driving technical genius is claiming that folding the seat flat makes it lighter. So even if by the wildest coincidence there is a smidgen of logic to his argument he's still got it a**se about face.
 
If we were to be feeling generous to our naked save Burberry cap chav genius suppose we should offer him a crumb of comfort in that he will of course have very slightly lowered the Centre of Gravity of his car. Hurrah! Some cornering advantage even if tiny.

However, by having the seats flat at the same time he will have shifted that slightly lower CoG point further back. Which in a FWD car will reduce his available traction on acceleration. D'oh!
 
Apial said:
Different parts of the Earth have a different value, and gravity also decreases with altitude.

A vertical object will have a smaller g value at the top compared to the bottom. The same object will, if laid horizontally, share the fractionally infinitessimally higher g value at the base, and thus weigh more (F=MG).

This appears to be what my wife has been telling me when she stands on the scales...

:rolleyes:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom