The R's Tuning....check it out!!!!

[OC3]

Originally Posted by LateBraking

Originally Posted by persian54

And 99% vs 1%...what is this, "Occupy M3Post"?

[sqweak]

Originally Posted by LateBraking

If we're using epic race car drivers as a scale point (that 1%), then technically no one should perform performance mods on their car. I see plenty of supercharged cars, KW V3's/Clubsports, BBK's that are on daily driven cars that never see track use, drag use etc. And again, I don't see you being a mean ol' Mr. Grinch whenever those guys hold those home photoshoots. So, from position A, what's the difference?

Don't throw the baby without the bath water. It certainly is a matter of scaling (see below). That said, using whether or not I've snarked against someone's mods as a barometer for it's stupidity/validity is inherently flawed. I am certainly not the dictator of mods, just a man with an opinion...who apparently felt like introducing myself to the regional board by snarkily pissing in someone's cheerios.

I also have a position B, which is about the benefit of a performance mod. Sure, only a professional could fully utilize the benefits of a rear trunk spoiler, but then, on that same token, only a professional could fully utilize a BBK, or a supercharger, or even just brake pad and fluid changes on the stock system, OR even the car in it's fully stock form. I don't personally get why everyone is always "zomg reach fur zhe limitz" , we'll never get there unless it's something you dedicate your life to. It's a HOBBY, and even though you won't reach the limit of your vehicle stock OR modded, adding performance mods can raise that limit and make your car more enjoyable and easier to drive at a faster level, under the car's limit, but at yours. Think of it as a scaling effect.

You nailed it on the scaling effect, but i'll apply in a slightly different way. I think what makes obscene aero a sore point to me is that exact scale. For pretty much every *other* mod you listed their impact can be felt at 2/10ths instead of 9/10ths.

Also, regarding the paint, what gives? I don't get these forum clowns sometimes. A car's dirty it's sacrilegious (poor OC3 ), a car's clean it's sacrilegious, a car's painted it's sacrilegious, a car's naked carbon it's sacrilegious, it's some twisted breeding ground for hatred.

on being called a clown

I wasn't taking a side on which is right or wrong just citing the attention as evidence of the mod as primarily cosmetic one :P

I can agree with you here where "thinly veiled blatant promotion" isn't valuable, it's unfortunate that 99% of the reviews about vendors on this forum, board sponsors OR not, is that kind of material. I don't think that fanboy ranting is acceptable just because it's paid for from a usefulness standpoint, but money talks, eh? It's unfortunate that a reviews can only be made in a bland, tired, lethargic way just because the shop in question is not a board sponsor, never mind the potential usefulness of the information. I think xchosun1x structured his review in a way that he was actually feeling: I met with him later and boy, was he jumping up and down in excitement. I guess that enthusiasm translates poorly on the boards as "advertising for a non-sponsor" though. Sponsors are zhe powur!

Perhaps your personal knowledge of chosun's personality helped you read it differently. To me it wasn't an enthusiastic detailed review but 4 lines of marketing hype with "i bought this this and this" in the middle of one of them. To me, that's an ad (and a poor one at that) and why I called it out. I don't wish to be the sponsor nazi* or get into a larger debate about why sponsor $s are valuable/necessary to run a site like this, I only referenced them because in contrast it would permit (though not necessarily validate or excuse) an otherwise lacking ad post.

I think chosun might have had good intentions and it just got lost for me. As a community member I would certainly *love* to see a detailed introduction/tour/review of a shop, sponsor AND not, this just wasn't it.

* = poor form on invoking Godwin's Law. Simply expressing my opinion is certainly not worthy of comparison to nazi's

Y'know sqweak, I really like you. Sure, we have differing viewpoints, but your response wasn't atypical of the mindless drivel I've come to expect of this forum. I get the feeling that you're the kind of person I'd be terrific friends with in person.

Likewise! Thanks for the well written and intelligent discourse. I do agree it's a cut above a lot of what I see around here.

Chosun:
Nothing personal man, and I hope you take no offense. Just as it's my right to have and state my opinion it's certainly your right to do whatever you want to your car and post whatever you want about it/shops/etc.

WWJD:
In the same vein, I hope you also take no offense at this . I wish you the best of luck at the hard work of running a business.

Perfectly willing/happy to meet up with LateBraking/chosun/wwjd at a local meet and buy y'all a coffee to prove it's no hard feelings.

[sqweak]

Originally Posted by persian54

I'm curious: have you driven a M3 around a track with aero and without areo to be able to compare and strongly confirm whether or not there really is indeed a difference? I mainly ask cause I have never driven a M3 with aero, so I'm completely ignorant in this area.
If one's lap times begin to improve after a mod is done (whatever that mod is), isn't is (relatively) safe to assume that there's a possibility that that mod helped improve the laptimes? since all else (driver as well) was more-or-less the same?

Nope, sure haven't. Perfectly valid question and I'd love to see the result as well. Unfortunately to have objective results it is pretty big undertaking: it would need to be the same car on the same day with the same driver who is consistant enough to put up reliable results.

I would challenge with the inverse. Isn't it safe to assume that given thousands upon thousands of hours of CAD, CFD and professional level test pilot testing that BMW's decision to *not* put a significant spoiler on any version of the car *except* the ALMS car signifies not an oversight but a reasoned scientific decision?

There is no free mod. A wing like that can change vehicle dynamics in a number of expected and unexepcted ways that the car hasn't been tested or set up for and in very many cases can actually hurt performance instead of help.

To be clear, I'm not objecting to aero outright in every case for every car. It's that I found it a bit ironic that OP proclaimed his and the shop's aptitude for tracking and proved it with pics of, to me, the least performance/most aesthetic/most outrageous example of aero possible.

And 99% vs 1%...what is this, "Occupy M3Post"?

Well played sir. I *knew* that was going to come up. I had put 99.9% but I felt that was being a little bit too sensationalist.

[LateBraking]

sqweak, didn't mean to call you a clown, it was a general statement in reference to the majority.

-Sent via iPhone.

[xchosun1x]

No offense taken.

My only response


Because race car!!!!!!!!

Form and function are two different things. I can get pair of jeans for function but will I wear 5 dollar jeans? No. Do you? I'm going to guess no. In that vein. Jeans are normally blue. Are you going to say a guy w black jeans is a poser for jeans? Lol.

I'm a designer by trade so It's hard for me not to try to match schemes

Anyways
I love the wing
Love how it performs
Love how it looks
And it does work 100% or I'd still have my Arkym trunk on

Cheers and see everyone at the track!

here's a pic of the wing not functioning hahaha




Seriously no offense taken. All in fun.

Wings aren't for everyone. ESP ones that match roofline

[wwjd15]

I'm sure my wing is functional as DD.

[xchosun1x]

LOLS love it!!!!!!!

[OC3]

Brian, sqweak is quite the pensmith - like you. You finally have a worthy adversary.

Originally Posted by wwjd15

I'm sure my wing is functional as DD.

[persian54]

Originally Posted by sqweak

I would challenge with the inverse. Isn't it safe to assume that given thousands upon thousands of hours of CAD, CFD and professional level test pilot testing that BMW's decision to *not* put a significant spoiler on any version of the car *except* the ALMS car signifies not an oversight but a reasoned scientific decision?

Sorry but you are in the wrong here

the M3 was not made to be a track car (hence the shitty stock brakes)
it was made to be a GT car, more-or-less

It wasn't a scientific decision to not put better brakes and a wing etc etc..it was a marketing decision

BMW is out there to make money, they're a business, simple as that.

Originally Posted by wwjd15

I'm sure my wing is functional as DD.

LOL

Originally Posted by sqweak

Perfectly willing/happy to meet up with LateBraking/chosun/wwjd at a local meet and buy y'all a coffee to prove it's no hard feelings.

I like coffee....

I always get left out


:'( *tear*

[sqweak]

Originally Posted by persian54

Sorry but you are in the wrong here

the M3 was not made to be a track car (hence the shitty stock brakes)
it was made to be a GT car, more-or-less

It wasn't a scientific decision to not put better brakes and a wing etc etc..it was a marketing decision

BMW is out there to make money, they're a business, simple as that.

I never said it was built to be a track car, I said that I'm certain that in the massive amount of development they did on the car their findings supported that there was significant downforce that didn't require a wing. It may well have been a marketing (or more accurately, design) decision, but you're nuts if you think that they didn't engineer the car to compensate for that.

We can agree to disagree.

I like coffee....

I always get left out


:'( *tear*

You're welcome to join, i didn't exclude any one just extended an invitation to those I had been specifically snarky to.

[persian54]

Originally Posted by sqweak

I never said it was built to be a track car, I said that I'm certain that in the massive amount of development they did on the car their findings supported that there was significant downforce that didn't require a wing. It may well have been a marketing (or more accurately, design) decision, but you're nuts if you think that they didn't engineer the car to compensate for that.

We can agree to disagree.

I have driven a Porsche C2s ad a GT3RS with a fat wing

I can tell you that in those two cars, the GT3RS had a heck of a lot more downforce... Hence why I feel that a wing does create efficient down force

Anyways, I know you never said it was built to be a track car, but we are in a thread talking about a shop that builds sick track cars, some of which have wings.
Then we got into talking about the functionality of these wings, where you said they're non-functional spoilers, and we said they're functional etc.
Hence why I mentioned that the M3 was not built as a track car, and it was designed more as a Grand Touring car that can go around the track better than a non-M, but it's far from a 'track car,"

Have you seen any mass produced BMW, heck any mass produced GT car, come with a wing?
A wing will create down force, but it's useless on the street and "ugly" to non-enthusiasts (and even to some enthusiasts)

I think maybe you missed my original point:
My point is.... BMW didn't put a wing on a stock M3 due to marketing and (as you said) design reasons, not because they engineered it to operate similar to how it would if it had a wing.

I'm not saying all cars should have wings, or heck even M3s should come stock with wings.
I know I wouldn't buy a M3 if it came stock with a wing.

I track, and I track pretty often (12+ track days this year and counting), but I wouldn't want a wing on my car.
I DD it as a cruiser around PCH, Hollywood, etc

I would love to have a wing on a M3 if it was my track car that I didn't DD...

[wwjd15]

I'll chime in with some of my experience on aero on street car.
Will putting a wing as big as mine on M3 perform better than stock? I say NO. And it's 100% NO. It will be slower, less turn in response, mid-high speed rear understeering and it will drive ugly.
But why I still put it on? I need rear downforce. At Fontana with my stock aero M3, during turn 1 I was doing 120+mph and the car wasn't that stable but I thought it's ok. I drove it whole day until I broke my front under panel. I had no clue why it came off. So I checked out the photos that shoot by track photographer. I saw that my front end was touching the ground at turn 1, and the rear end was sky high like a 4x4. I decided to get a wing after the track day.

To complete the wing, u will need a real front lip, a set of good and wide range adjustable coilovers, and also dial everything in with the tires and sizes you are running. Then turn the suspension to the spec where the driver wants to be. It includes camber setting, front and rear ride height, compression and rebound.

It sounds very complicated and it sure does. U will also need to change wing angel according to the tracks.

Some forum members have asked me if they should get a wing for their M's, I always respond 'hmm, it depends'.

To sum it up, I believe my wing works good on tracks and streets too as u can see my pic above. You might wanna bring out your car at the track and experience everything. U can definitely prove me deadly wrong by running a faster laptimes without a big ass wing. Hopefully see you at the track or car meet.

[persian54]

Originally Posted by wwjd15

I drove it whole day until I broke my front under panel. I had no clue why it came off. So I checked out the photos that shoot by track photographer. I saw that my front end was touching the ground at turn 1, and the rear end was sky high like a 4x4. I decided to get a wing after the track day.

Yeah I remember you telling me about this yesterday

Crazy!

[sqweak]

Originally Posted by persian54

Then we got into talking about the functionality of these wings, where you said they're non-functional spoilers, and we said they're functional etc.

I miscommunicated what I was trying to say. I never meant that they literally didn't do anything, but that as they were unnecessary for the street combined with changing dynamics they *typically* are cosmetic on street cars. In fact, I'll let wwjd make my point for me exactly.

Originally Posted by wwjd15

I'll chime in with some of my experience on aero on street car.
Will putting a wing as big as mine on M3 perform better than stock? I say NO. And it's 100% NO. It will be slower, less turn in response, mid-high speed rear understeering and it will drive ugly.

1000 TIMES THIS is exactly why I said what I said.

But why I still put it on? I need rear downforce. At Fontana with my stock aero M3, during turn 1 I was doing 120+mph and the car wasn't that stable but I thought it's ok. I drove it whole day until I broke my front under panel. I had no clue why it came off. So I checked out the photos that shoot by track photographer. I saw that my front end was touching the ground at turn 1, and the rear end was sky high like a 4x4. I decided to get a wing after the track day.

...and this is exactly the kind of hands on educational anecdote I was looking for to vouch for the wing!

To complete the wing, u will need a real front lip, a set of good and wide range adjustable coilovers, and also dial everything in with the tires and sizes you are running. Then turn the suspension to the spec where the driver wants to be. It includes camber setting, front and rear ride height, compression and rebound.

It sounds very complicated and it sure does. U will also need to change wing angel according to the tracks.

...and more proof of wwjd shutting me up by dropping the exact kind of knowledge I would expect from experienced wrenching.

To sum it up, I believe my wing works good on tracks and streets too as u can see my pic above. You might wanna bring out your car at the track and experience everything. U can definitely prove me deadly wrong by running a faster laptimes without a big ass wing. Hopefully see you at the track or car meet.

Would love to make it out to one, but I usually shy away from tracking my daily. If I do make it out, I certainly wouldn't be setting out to prove you wrong, I trust your analysis :P

Otherwise, like I said, would love to meet up with ya guys some time.

[persian54]

Originally Posted by sqweak

I miscommunicated what I was trying to say. I never meant that they literally didn't do anything, but that as they were unnecessary for the street combined with changing dynamics they *typically* are cosmetic on street cars. In fact, I'll let wwjd make my point for me exactly.

I think we just misunderstood and miscommunicated some points

It happens as we are only using text; no emotions, tone of voice etc
Also, we can't verify what the other is saying/meaning

You should come out, a couple of us are going to Big Willow this saturday

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=617158

Point is...

The best reason to have a wing is to put McDonalds on it

[BIGjohnny]

Originally Posted by wwjd15

I'm sure my wing is functional as DD.

POST OF THE YEAR!!!

How's the shop Ricky? I need to pay a visit when i'm free from work

[BIGjohnny]

Non-functional spoiler on a M3... Hmmm... Yea it's non-functional!!! Considering this stock AMG nearly matches the lap time of that so-called M3 track car with that wanabe spoiler. Just kidding xchosun1x.

See you guys at the track this weekend.

By the way... Got the car tuned by OE Tuning. See attached

[xchosun1x]

sick gains....

oe to the rescue!

btw...BIGjohnny..i hope u have no more "excuses" of your car having bad tires, bad brakes, bad driver =o


lols jk back at ya

[BIGjohnny]

Originally Posted by xchosun1x

sick gains....

oe to the rescue!

btw...BIGjohnny..i hope u have no more "excuses" of your car having bad tires, bad brakes, bad driver =o


lols jk back at ya

LOL... if i'm a bad driver... then you're certainly no Ultimate Driver. Since this bad driver can keep up with the so-called Ultimate Driving Machine.

No Ultimate Driver then Ultimate Driving Machine FAILS (With the exception of Ricky)

[OC3]

Hmmmm, those curves look so... parallel. Woops, better not start another.. :X

[wwjd15]

wow~~ 284 and 308.. you are going to kick ass

[persian54]

you have more torque than us