The TL Diet Videos
10-15-2009, 10:14 AM
#121
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Thanks IHC.
When I did my steady state, I went up to just 40 mph. Yours is an 2006 like mine, so we have the same trans for sure. I suppose there is some converter slip then. I can see no other explanation. The video clearly shows 6000 at 60.
I say we drop it. It is not that important. I think most people don't really pay any attention to Dave_B anyways.
Like I said in my original post, take the 0-60 video for what you feel it is worth.
I do hope to make it to the track when Texas starts to get some cold weather without drizzle. Then, we can have conspiracy theories how I photoshop'ed the slips, had hidden Nox, had a rocket strapped to my ass, etc. Haha..
When I did my steady state, I went up to just 40 mph. Yours is an 2006 like mine, so we have the same trans for sure. I suppose there is some converter slip then. I can see no other explanation. The video clearly shows 6000 at 60.
I say we drop it. It is not that important. I think most people don't really pay any attention to Dave_B anyways.
Like I said in my original post, take the 0-60 video for what you feel it is worth.
I do hope to make it to the track when Texas starts to get some cold weather without drizzle. Then, we can have conspiracy theories how I photoshop'ed the slips, had hidden Nox, had a rocket strapped to my ass, etc. Haha..
10-15-2009, 10:53 AM
#122
Team Owner
Thanks IHC.
When I did my steady state, I went up to just 40 mph. Yours is an 2006 like mine, so we have the same trans for sure. I suppose there is some converter slip then. I can see no other explanation. The video clearly shows 6000 at 60.
I say we drop it. It is not that important. I think most people don't really pay any attention to Dave_B anyways.
Like I said in my original post, take the 0-60 video for what you feel it is worth.
I do hope to make it to the track when Texas starts to get some cold weather without drizzle. Then, we can have conspiracy theories how I photoshop'ed the slips, had hidden Nox, had a rocket strapped to my ass, etc. Haha..
When I did my steady state, I went up to just 40 mph. Yours is an 2006 like mine, so we have the same trans for sure. I suppose there is some converter slip then. I can see no other explanation. The video clearly shows 6000 at 60.
I say we drop it. It is not that important. I think most people don't really pay any attention to Dave_B anyways.
Like I said in my original post, take the 0-60 video for what you feel it is worth.
I do hope to make it to the track when Texas starts to get some cold weather without drizzle. Then, we can have conspiracy theories how I photoshop'ed the slips, had hidden Nox, had a rocket strapped to my ass, etc. Haha..
10-15-2009, 12:20 PM
#123
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,770 Likes
on
4,341 Posts
I would agree that there may be some error, but, assuming the time counter is good (and I do), not more than a tenth of a second or so. IOW - 4.6 sec to 4.8 sec seems to be what we are seeing.
Is the speedo dead nuts correct? Don't know, probably not. But it should be with a MPH or so. Is the tach dead nuts correct? Don't know, probably not. Not sure what error would be normal. But for a MPH run, it doesn't matter. Only the speedo error matters. Even if the speedo is fed from the tach (and afaik, it is not on the TL), the tach error would be "bundled" into the speedo error.
So lets do some math. Time counter error, I'll say is +- 0.1 sec. Speedo error is +- 1.5 MPH. (I think both of these are conservative, but feel free to plug your own numbers in. Caclulator here: http://laffers.net/tools/error-propa...calculator.php)
Total % error = sqrt (% timer error^2 + % speedo error^2)
= sqrt ((% 0.1 / 4.7)^2 + (% 1.5/60)^2)
= sqrt (4.527 + 6.25) = 3.28%
2 significant digits, so runs should be 4.7 +- 0.15 = 4.55 to 4.85 seconds. Note that I've taken the "slow" run of 4.7 seconds, not the "fast" run of 4.6 seconds; again, the conservative figure.
Innacurate, I'd like to see track times and time slips too. I'm sure a lot of other people as well. I don't know that track times are more accurate than what you're trying to show. Despite Dave_B's opinion that time slips are "worth a lot more", there are a LOT of uncontrolled variables at the track: temp, humidity, track condition, their timing/scoring error, etc. So there will be variation in track times, but it gives definetly gives more "depth" to the picture.
I don't doubt you're quick, nor do I doubt your integrity regarding methods and measurements. However, I think track times would ADD to the credibility since it is an independent verification/measurment. It's also the best (only?) way to get some relative comparision to other TL's. We want to know where you stand, comparatively.
I do agree with Dave_B on the weight. I know you've weighed parts as you've removed them, but again independent confirmation is nice to have.
FWIW - I've done my own "test" of MPH v RPM. Did it for my track day because I wanted to know what MPH for a given gear would be just inside of the VTEC activation. I ran 1st, 2nd and 3rd (TL-S 5AT in SS mode) to find the MPH for 5,000 RPM (VTEC is 4900 iirc). To my surprise the MPH were nice neat even numbers: 30, 50 & 80 MPH respectively. Using the published gear ratio's, the published revs per mile for my tires (which were new at the time) and Dave-B's calculator, there seems to be an error of either a couple of MPH or a couple of hundred RPM (in the calculator or the car, I don't know which). This is even after accounting for the difference from OE tire size (1.42% speedo error from the oversize).
Edit: Inaccurate, when you DO hit the track, don't forget to make video of rocket strapped to your ass. Subscribed just to see that.
[ModHat]
Stop the sniping about the shoulds and shouldn'ts of street racing and keep whatever expecations we may have about age/experience and responisbility out of the conversation. This is a generally the "safe" place to discuss Street Racing. If you disagree with the concept, use the other forums.
[/ModHat]
Last edited by Bearcat94; 10-15-2009 at 12:26 PM.
10-15-2009, 12:42 PM
#124
Burning Brakes
Innacurate, I'd like to see track times and time slips too. I'm sure a lot of other people as well. I don't know that track times are more accurate than what you're trying to show. Despite Dave_B's opinion that time slips are "worth a lot more", there are a LOT of uncontrolled variables at the track: temp, humidity, track condition, their timing/scoring error, etc. So there will be variation in track times, but it gives definetly gives more "depth" to the picture.
If his car is truely capable of a 4.6 0-60mph with a strong FWD 60' (say high 1.9/low 2.0), that would tell me his car is capable of 12.8-13.0@107-109mph. That means his 500lb weight reduction and 30whp increase in power would have taken the car from 14.8s@95mph to 13.1@107mph. That would be quite a staggering increase in performance for such small amount in weight reduction and added hp. That's where none of this is making sense to me. For every 100lb you drop in static weight, you'll typically see a reduction in ET of around .1-.15 seconds and 1mph. So say 14.2@100mph. Then add in the power mods and you're looking at 13.8ish@102-103mph. Seeing that he'll be running at HRP in the fall, he may even see a 13.6@104mph. But low 13s, much less high 12s? I not seeing it.
10-15-2009, 01:05 PM
#125
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
1 vote for bearcat to start the Ultimate TL-S Diet. 
10-15-2009, 01:43 PM
#126
Team Owner
Track times do vary by altitude and temp. But they affect every car. The acceleration is still measured with very accurate measuring equipment. It takes all of the variables such as speedo accuracy, stopwatch precision, reaction time, etc out of the equation. Or another way of saying it is the variables that affect track times also affect stopwatch times. Generally unless you have a turbo car or extremely fast NA car you're not going to see more than a couple tenths and mph from track to track with a couple exceptions.
As Dave mentioned they can be corrected for and the correction is very accurate. I do put a lot of weight in 60' time because the fact of the matter is whoever crosses the line first wins the race even if the lose has a higher mph. I see the point in this application that mph equals power and it's not really affected by traction and 60'. However I want to see a 60' time because I believe the weight reduction will put Inaccurate's TL into FWD drag radial territory.
As Dave mentioned they can be corrected for and the correction is very accurate. I do put a lot of weight in 60' time because the fact of the matter is whoever crosses the line first wins the race even if the lose has a higher mph. I see the point in this application that mph equals power and it's not really affected by traction and 60'. However I want to see a 60' time because I believe the weight reduction will put Inaccurate's TL into FWD drag radial territory.
10-15-2009, 02:15 PM
#127
Safety Car
Thread Starter
I received this question as a PM. I want to include it here too.
To get the 4.6 seconds, it was the weight reduction that did it mostly. The engine mods helped, but mostly from the less weight.
To get a good 0-60, you need excellent traction. This is why FWD cars have a hard time getting a good 0-60 compared to RWD cars.
The primary reason that I can get a good 0-60 is because the weight that I do have is over the front wheels. I mean, more so than the oem TL, which is approx 60%/40% weight bias already.
Did you have a "Big Wheel" when you was a kid? I did. If you had a Big Wheel, you know firsthand why a FWD has traction problems. Now, imagine if you were to set on top of the handlebars instead of the seat. Your weight would be directly over that front driving wheel. Now, your traction situation has greatly improved.
do u think ur weight reduction techniques contributed mostly to ur 4.6 sec 0-60 mph or ur mods u have done?
To get a good 0-60, you need excellent traction. This is why FWD cars have a hard time getting a good 0-60 compared to RWD cars.
The primary reason that I can get a good 0-60 is because the weight that I do have is over the front wheels. I mean, more so than the oem TL, which is approx 60%/40% weight bias already.
Did you have a "Big Wheel" when you was a kid? I did. If you had a Big Wheel, you know firsthand why a FWD has traction problems. Now, imagine if you were to set on top of the handlebars instead of the seat. Your weight would be directly over that front driving wheel. Now, your traction situation has greatly improved.
10-15-2009, 02:33 PM
#128
Team Owner
Not just the weight distribution but total weight has a big influence on tracton too. Lighter cars tend to have better traction also. This has shown as I took 400lbs off my GN. The difference is apparent on street tire even with roughly the same distribution.
10-15-2009, 03:42 PM
#129
Very impressive stuff Inacc, as always keep up the good work. Of course we'd like to see official times from tracks/dynos/scales etc but all these "unofficial" tests will continue to inform the community and piece together what works and doesn't until whether time, money, location permits to get the official results.
Dave B does however brings up very good points and constructive criticism. I don't believe their intentions are to hinder progress but to help improve the overall process.
Also Dave B, not sure if you remember me but I'm friends with kit99bar and used to own a 1997 Black Nissan Maxima SE which I came down to KC to get your help on installing springs/shocks. Hope you and your family are doing well!
Dave B does however brings up very good points and constructive criticism. I don't believe their intentions are to hinder progress but to help improve the overall process.
Also Dave B, not sure if you remember me but I'm friends with kit99bar and used to own a 1997 Black Nissan Maxima SE which I came down to KC to get your help on installing springs/shocks. Hope you and your family are doing well!
10-15-2009, 11:13 PM
#130
Safety Car
Thread Starter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF5tzbAAGaA
Bearcat94 - it is *not* off by "a tenth of a second or so".
I posted the video. Please do* not* try to hit pause to verify the results. The stopwatch’s LCD display was not intended for this purpose. When you hit pause on the video, you have no idea which numeral segments are “warming up” or “cooling down” to display the next readout. In the editing software, I was lucky enough to see clear numbers often enough to capture these pics below.
Plus, each frame of the video spans 0.033 seconds.
1 Sec / 30 fps = 0.033 seconds per frame
So, the clocks appear to not match sometime because of the "0.033 seconds per frame" resolution. But, rest assured that the camcorder's time track is very accurate, down to a 1/100 second.
Originally Posted by Bearcat94 from Post #123
assuming the time counter is good (and I do), not more than a tenth of a second or so.
Originally Posted by Inaccurate from the FACTOIDS section
The timing (time track) within the video is super accurate. I won't bore you with the videos, but I did make videos of this stopwatch (pic below) using the same camcorder and same processing technique as used to make the YouTube videos. This was done to certify the camcorder. The camcorder matched the stopwatch, down to the exact same 1/100 second. I even extended the testing to a 60 seconds duration. And after 60 seconds of recording the stopwatch, the video (before and after processing) still showed the same time (time track) as the stopwatch, down to the exact same 1/100 second.
I posted the video. Please do* not* try to hit pause to verify the results. The stopwatch’s LCD display was not intended for this purpose. When you hit pause on the video, you have no idea which numeral segments are “warming up” or “cooling down” to display the next readout. In the editing software, I was lucky enough to see clear numbers often enough to capture these pics below.
Plus, each frame of the video spans 0.033 seconds.
1 Sec / 30 fps = 0.033 seconds per frame
So, the clocks appear to not match sometime because of the "0.033 seconds per frame" resolution. But, rest assured that the camcorder's time track is very accurate, down to a 1/100 second.
10-15-2009, 11:39 PM
#131
Safety Car
Thread Starter
BTW - This readout in the videos is actually the camcorder's time track being displayed via the video editing software. This readout is *not* me manually adding it into the videos.
10-16-2009, 01:23 AM
#132
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,770 Likes
on
4,341 Posts
Wow, dude, no need to yell at me.
Have you gotten so thin skinned that anyone who questions you is the enemy?
In fact, I was supporting your methods, not detracting from them. I "proved" that your time was correct within 0.15 seconds (using my conservative/reasonable assumptions). IOW - that you were WELL under 5.0 seconds, even after accounting for measurement error.
I made an assumption about accuracy and left you (or others) the option to plug in you own numbers. I even gave you (or others) the calculator so you wouldn't have to do the arithmetic. Sorry I didn't recall the 1/100th comment in your opening blurb, otherwise, I might've used it.
.... there may be some error, but, assuming....
(I think both of these are conservative, but feel free to plug your own numbers in. Caclulator here: http://laffers.net/tools/error-propa...calculator.php)
....
(I think both of these are conservative, but feel free to plug your own numbers in. Caclulator here: http://laffers.net/tools/error-propa...calculator.php)
....
BTW, using 1/100th instead of 1/10th changes the error from 3.28% to 2.50%, assuming the same speedo error.
That estimate gives a result of 4.7 +-0.12 --> 4.58 - 4.82. IOW, the accuracy is more sensitive to the speedometer error, assuming the timer is "pretty good".
10-16-2009, 07:19 AM
#133
Safety Car
Thread Starter
No, I did not mean it as yelling. 
I did the big text so that it would not get lost among the sea of video boxes, quote boxes, pics.
I had been wanting to post the vid of the stopwatch for a while. I believe there are viewers (lurkers) out there that are wondering how accurate the time readout is in the video. I would if I was them.
Although you were defending my method (which I knew and I do appreciate it!), I foresee others twisting it as "tolerance stacking". Tolerance stacking is a technical term simply meaning that a few small meaningless variations (tolerances) could potentially add-up (stack-up) into a meaningful error.
So, I just wanting to show that the camcorder was not a potential source of error, especially a tenth or so.
Thank you Bearcat for helping to clarify for others.
No "thinskin" intended.
I did the big text so that it would not get lost among the sea of video boxes, quote boxes, pics.
I had been wanting to post the vid of the stopwatch for a while. I believe there are viewers (lurkers) out there that are wondering how accurate the time readout is in the video. I would if I was them.
Although you were defending my method (which I knew and I do appreciate it!), I foresee others twisting it as "tolerance stacking". Tolerance stacking is a technical term simply meaning that a few small meaningless variations (tolerances) could potentially add-up (stack-up) into a meaningful error.
So, I just wanting to show that the camcorder was not a potential source of error, especially a tenth or so.
Thank you Bearcat for helping to clarify for others.
No "thinskin" intended.
10-16-2009, 08:16 AM
#134
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,770 Likes
on
4,341 Posts
Thanks. No problem.
It was late, so maybe a little more drama on my part than necessary.
BTW - as you probably recognize, I did use Error Propegation, aka, "tolerance stacking" (a term I've not heard before).
It was late, so maybe a little more drama on my part than necessary.
BTW - as you probably recognize, I did use Error Propegation, aka, "tolerance stacking" (a term I've not heard before).
Last edited by Bearcat94; 10-16-2009 at 08:19 AM.
10-16-2009, 11:00 AM
#135
Safety Car
Thread Starter
I been thinking of these two jokes often, and I get a laugh and a smile every time I think of these. I love clever wit.
Thanks RonJonTL757 & Bearcat94
10-16-2009, 10:02 PM
#138
practicing nihilist
be sure to look up IHC's race gas mixture thread. About 103 is the TL's happy place at the track.
If you're gonna do the track, I would go all out. See if a fellow 'ziner can loan you a set of drag radials or slicks.
nice job.
If you're gonna do the track, I would go all out. See if a fellow 'ziner can loan you a set of drag radials or slicks.
nice job.
10-17-2009, 12:24 AM
#139
Safety Car
Thread Starter
CLEAN RACE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQVJzHW3Qz0
The MazdaSpeed3 had a boner to add a TL to his kill list.
I knew he was going to race with me because I saw his hot-foot driving style from behind me moments before reaching the turn. He laid into it as he made the turn. I did not need to entice him at all. He had plans already to “teach me a lesson”.
Remember that this race is going up an incline. The incline causes the pull to happen in slow motion compare to level ground.
I will say that his car did a respectable job.
10-17-2009, 12:48 AM
#141
Team Owner
What a fag! Nice race, I don't understand the mentality of people that do flybys. I've heard guys talking like the other car was faster but since he was ahead after the other driver let off, he won. You have no idea how many times I have guys do that to me in the GN after I put buslengths on them and hit the brakes.
You did show him your brake lights when you shut it down, right? And btw, that was a hard pull. Those MS3s are neck and neck with a stock TL, pretty much a driver's race. That looked like a 100hp difference.
You did show him your brake lights when you shut it down, right? And btw, that was a hard pull. Those MS3s are neck and neck with a stock TL, pretty much a driver's race. That looked like a 100hp difference.
10-17-2009, 02:24 AM
#144
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Can someone help identify this UFO that I raced?
I have Googled and I find no Mazda's that have a grill like the dude I raced. His Grill has 2 ribs, all other Mazda3's have one rib in the grill.
He was too quick to be a Mazda3 because the Mazda3 has only 167 HP.. right?
The Mazdaspeed3 has 263 HP.
I don't know what I raced..... I raced a UFO
He was way too quick to have just 167 HP.
Unless he had a rocket strapped to his butt.
10-17-2009, 05:16 AM
#145
Have to admit; that is a regular 3. I've tangled with a couple of MS3's. They have very distinguishing markings from the Mazda 3's; lower body molding, bigger exhaust, grill, etc. However with some simple bolts-ons, the Mazda 3's are no slouch. They even have chips for those things!
A stock TL would have pulled at least two or three cars on a stock 3. You did like three or four buses! Great run and footage though! Your car pulls like crazy! Keep 'em coming!
A stock TL would have pulled at least two or three cars on a stock 3. You did like three or four buses! Great run and footage though! Your car pulls like crazy! Keep 'em coming!
10-17-2009, 06:20 AM
#147
practicing nihilist
that stretch of road leading into the highways is like your personal launch pad, isn't it! Same incline in the Mustang video, no?
Man, I despise those MS3's so much I want to get one. Factory turbo'd cars are just too easy to unlock power from.
Unless he changed his emblems, that rear badge is too short to spell out "MazdaSpeed 3".
Man, I despise those MS3's so much I want to get one. Factory turbo'd cars are just too easy to unlock power from.
Unless he changed his emblems, that rear badge is too short to spell out "MazdaSpeed 3".
10-17-2009, 08:43 AM
#148
Senior Moderator
10-17-2009, 09:02 AM
#149
Pro
Unfortunantly it is just a Mazda3 5-door. same grill http://www.netcarshow.com/mazda/2004...llpaper_01.htm
Can someone help identify this UFO that I raced?
I have Googled and I find no Mazda's that have a grill like the dude I raced. His Grill has 2 ribs, all other Mazda3's have one rib in the grill.
He was too quick to be a Mazda3 because the Mazda3 has only 167 HP.. right?
The Mazdaspeed3 has 263 HP.
I don't know what I raced..... I raced a UFO
He was way too quick to have just 167 HP.
Unless he had a rocket strapped to his butt.
Can someone help identify this UFO that I raced?
I have Googled and I find no Mazda's that have a grill like the dude I raced. His Grill has 2 ribs, all other Mazda3's have one rib in the grill.
He was too quick to be a Mazda3 because the Mazda3 has only 167 HP.. right?
The Mazdaspeed3 has 263 HP.
I don't know what I raced..... I raced a UFO
He was way too quick to have just 167 HP.
Unless he had a rocket strapped to his butt.
10-17-2009, 09:42 AM
#150
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,770 Likes
on
4,341 Posts
10-17-2009, 10:19 AM
#151
Burning Brakes
Yep, that's a regular 3. The easiest way to identify the MSP3 is that the hood is quite a bit taller than the regular 3 hood. Also, I don't believe that color wasn't offered as a MSP3.
10-17-2009, 10:29 AM
#152
Burning Brakes
As for the pull and why this guy kept up intially, you were in a high gear and the auto had to downshift a few gears. He was already trying to pass. That's why the 2.3 kept up for a very short while. I really doubt the guy was in the throttle 100% once you started pulling away hard. Most people give up once they see a car running away from them. At least that's been my experience. I don't how many times people claimed to "run away" or and put bus lengths on me when I had basically given up when they had put two cars on me and were still pulling. I knew there was was no point to keep going and make the bleeding worse.
We'd all like to think our car would just explode away in acceleration when you're up against a car that's significantly slower. But if they've got the jump and it's from a roll, sometimes it takes a little time to catch up and go around them even.
We'd all like to think our car would just explode away in acceleration when you're up against a car that's significantly slower. But if they've got the jump and it's from a roll, sometimes it takes a little time to catch up and go around them even.
Last edited by Dave_B; 10-17-2009 at 10:31 AM.
10-17-2009, 10:43 AM
#153
Team Owner
As for the pull and why this guy kept up intially, you were in a high gear and the auto had to downshift a few gears. He was already trying to pass. That's why the 2.3 kept up for a very short while. I really doubt the guy was in the throttle 100% once you started pulling away hard. Most people give up once they see a car running away from them. At least that's been my experience. I don't how many times people claimed to "run away" or and put bus lengths on me when I had basically given up when they had put two cars on me and were still pulling. I knew there was was no point to keep going and make the bleeding worse.
We'd all like to think our car would just explode away in acceleration when you're up against a car that's significantly slower. But if they've got the jump and it's from a roll, sometimes it takes a little time to catch up and go around them even.
We'd all like to think our car would just explode away in acceleration when you're up against a car that's significantly slower. But if they've got the jump and it's from a roll, sometimes it takes a little time to catch up and go around them even.
10-17-2009, 10:55 AM
#154
Burning Brakes
My guess is 14.1@102mph with a lower 2.2 60'.
10-17-2009, 11:46 AM
#156
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the pull and why this guy kept up intially, you were in a high gear and the auto had to downshift a few gears. He was already trying to pass. That's why the 2.3 kept up for a very short while. I really doubt the guy was in the throttle 100% once you started pulling away hard. Most people give up once they see a car running away from them. At least that's been my experience. I don't how many times people claimed to "run away" or and put bus lengths on me when I had basically given up when they had put two cars on me and were still pulling. I knew there was was no point to keep going and make the bleeding worse.
We'd all like to think our car would just explode away in acceleration when you're up against a car that's significantly slower. But if they've got the jump and it's from a roll, sometimes it takes a little time to catch up and go around them even.
We'd all like to think our car would just explode away in acceleration when you're up against a car that's significantly slower. But if they've got the jump and it's from a roll, sometimes it takes a little time to catch up and go around them even.
10-17-2009, 11:55 AM
#157
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
10-17-2009, 12:05 PM
#158
Suzuka Master
iTrader: (2)
I'm pretty sure that was Ron Livingston that you raced; the guy from "Office Space".
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0515296/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0515296/
10-17-2009, 01:45 PM
#159
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Welcome to the The Zapruder films 
Below is a close-up and enhancement of the pic above.
The pic above is just before he flys-by. I was too busy driving to look at the speedo, but a good guess would be that I was 90+ when I let-off. And I was gently into the brakes (continuously) immediately after letting-off, all the way to the stoplight.
10-17-2009, 01:50 PM
#160
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
^ those rotors must have gotten hot.. try real firm pressure then let off next time to give them a chance to cool before stopping... even though they probably weren't nearly as hot as a stock TL but still... just a suggestion.
That guy was a complete buffoon to fly by right into traffic. Just beware that if something were to happen you would also be accountable. You totally murdered him though.. lol.
That guy was a complete buffoon to fly by right into traffic. Just beware that if something were to happen you would also be accountable. You totally murdered him though.. lol.