<![CDATA[lol @ OnStar]]>http://blog.webridestv.com/2009/10/hennessey-cts-v-fast-enough-to-scare-onstar/

....

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/18353/lol-@-onstarRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 03:32:22 GMTSun, 29 Nov 2009 19:21:19 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:52:40 GMT]]>Bawlz!!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283421https://fargostreet.com/post/283421Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:52:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:51:22 GMT]]>

63vette;294974 wrote:
????? You know G's are not constant through the 60'.

Uh huh. All I get on the timeslip is a 60' incremental so I gotta run with something. I have no idea how to estimate what the initial hit is, so I just calc accel from 0 to 60' in a certain period of time and assume it's constant. Sorry for the cornfusion.

63vette;294974 wrote:
A 6.60 prostock has a 2.8g launch, with a 1.7g 60'.
Your car aint a prostock! 🙂

Prostock's got nuttin.

🙂

I dunno, I guess my formula isn't right. Or, Mike Edwards better look out....

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283420https://fargostreet.com/post/283420Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:51:22 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:41:29 GMT]]>yea, wtf? more pictars of dave with a gotaee

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283387https://fargostreet.com/post/283387Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:41:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:42:17 GMT]]>I suggest a roundhouse kick to the head of those who think you aren't that cool Mr. Norris.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283381https://fargostreet.com/post/283381Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:42:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:00:36 GMT]]>Heck Mitch, I'm not even as cool as "I" think I am. 🙂

24valvenotak;294954 wrote:
there you have it, chuck norris car is only 2.7 times cooler then a hennesy cadillac, not eleventy billion like some would lead you to believe :icon_cheers:

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283378https://fargostreet.com/post/283378Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:00:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:24:42 GMT]]>ahahaha. Thats real funny.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283375https://fargostreet.com/post/283375Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:24:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:24 GMT]]>

DaveH;294941 wrote:
That is funny, but what kind of 60' do you get with a 1.0 G launch? I bet it's weak sauce. 🙂

edit I just ran the calcs on the G's my car pulls. If you assume acceleration is constant through the entire first 60', it creates 2.7 G's. Weak sauce.
????? You know G's are not constant through the 60'.
A 6.60 prostock has a 2.8g launch, with a 1.7g 60'.
Your car aint a prostock! 🙂

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283362https://fargostreet.com/post/283362Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:57:32 GMT]]>

XJHEAD;294953 wrote:
You better get a new calculator. I just used the calculator on my phone, you mean I need a new phone?

:icon_geek:

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283349https://fargostreet.com/post/283349Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:57:32 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:44:29 GMT]]>

DaveH;294941 wrote:
That is funny, but what kind of 60' do you get with a 1.0 G launch? I bet it's weak sauce. 🙂

edit I just ran the calcs on the G's my car pulls. If you assume acceleration is constant through the entire first 60', it creates 2.7 G's. Weak sauce.

there you have it, chuck norris car is only 2.7 times cooler then a hennesy cadillac, not eleventy billion like some would lead you to believe :icon_cheers:

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283342https://fargostreet.com/post/283342Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:44:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:42:45 GMT]]>

DaveH;294941 wrote:
That is funny, but what kind of 60' do you get with a 1.0 G launch? I bet it's weak sauce. 🙂

edit I just ran the calcs on the G's my car pulls. If you assume acceleration is constant through the entire first 60', it creates 2.7 G's. Weak sauce.

You better get a new calculator.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283341https://fargostreet.com/post/283341Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:42:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:35:09 GMT]]>That is funny, but what kind of 60' do you get with a 1.0 G launch? I bet it's weak sauce. 🙂

edit I just ran the calcs on the G's my car pulls. If you assume acceleration is constant through the entire first 60', it creates 2.7 G's. Weak sauce.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283329https://fargostreet.com/post/283329Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:35:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to lol @ OnStar on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:27:23 GMT]]>Thats awesome

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/283307https://fargostreet.com/post/283307Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:27:23 GMT