What is "Fast"?
- Thread starter Joshy
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 12
- Location
- Inverness
I know that I am new round here but I am finding it incredulous that an St is being compared to an E46 M3.
If you put down a scale of all cars 0-60, 8s would be in the fast bracket imo.
Given the amount of cars that take 10s+ and forgetting everyones personal experience, when comparing car v car (non supercar or out and put sports cars) 8s is 'fast'
Last edited:
That isn't what is happening here.
The Wikipedia crew are disputing an M3 took from 40-90MPH to pass a Focus on the road, a statement that was made innocently, with no intentions of argument.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 12
- Location
- Inverness
Was the M3 asthmatic?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,786
- Location
- Falling...
Hope I never come across an ST on the road against my bike - I'd feel too ashamed to have been beaten by one as clearly it'd be shown the door 
Well, not really tbh.
You have a proven track record of posting drivel, so were not going to pay that much attention to the thread are we?
I think enough of us get the picture.
Christ! - i thought my truck had loud reverse alarms.....
Despite me repeatedly proving everything else is accurate (Despite everyone else telling me every detail is impossible)?
The problem here is people are taking it as if my Focus is faster than an M3, which isn't even close to what I'm saying and I've clarified that over and over again.
The irony is, first of all it was that my account couldn't have happened, then when someone demonstrated that was perfectly possible whilst keeping my account completely honest, then people start attacking the other details such as location and the possibility to achieve my account in that location. So I prove that part of it too, and now there is no argument, just cheap remarks and insults.
Seriously?
The problem here is people are taking it as if my Focus is faster than an M3, which isn't even close to what I'm saying and I've clarified that over and over again.
The irony is, first of all it was that my account couldn't have happened, then when someone demonstrated that was perfectly possible whilst keeping my account completely honest, then people start attacking the other details such as location and the possibility to achieve my account in that location. So I prove that part of it too, and now there is no argument, just cheap remarks and insults.
Seriously?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Wait I thought you were level with him? You seem to be implying that he was behind you now and simply took that time to 'pass' you? Is the story evolving again? You gave us the impression both cars were side by side from 40-100mph, now its down to 90mph already which is to be expected as a MikeH story evolves, but? Oh and out of interest given its now 40-90 apparently, did you both take the roundabout, side by side, at 40mph?
I give it 24 hours before the story becomes 'I pulled onto a dual carriageway and an M3 shot past'.
We are becoming (Quite usefully for Mike, I'm sure) rather sidetracked by the 'is the race even physically possible on the road claimed' debate. Whilst I am quite sure that 30-100-0 is possible on a 0.6 mile stretch of dual carriageway, it's the 30-130+-20 part that the M3 would have had to do that is dubious - even if it is possible it's a pretty reckless piece of driving, no? Those sort of speeds in a 'race' on a road with such little length? It's an urban DC as well, isnt it, its in the middle of Newport? It certainly was last time I drove down it, but of course that was in another universe as Mike says I have no personal experience of said road.
Either way this nicely glosses over the fact that Mike claims he raced an M3 and was 'level until 90', which a year later had a failed head gasket, which was then subesequently sold to a new buyer who hasnt noticed, even though he's only owned the Focus for 9 months.
I have no doubt that if we can continue arguing this for several more days Mikes story will have evolved still further. This is what happens, he thinks of something, posts it, and then the story evolves to try and suit whatever it is people disagree with throughout the rest of the thread.
Happily, though, this makes for hilarious reading and is jolly good fun
Are we the only people to be constantly amused by his claims and presentation as fact a bunch of opinions that are usually wrong?
Fair enough. [TW]Fox;17645661 said:Wait I thought you were level with him? You seem to be implying that he was behind you now and simply took that time to 'pass' you? Is the story evolving again? You gave us the impression both cars were side by side from 40-100mph, now its down to 90mph already which is to be expected as a MikeH story evolves, but? Oh and out of interest given its now 40-90 apparently, did you both take the roundabout, side by side, at 40mph?
I give it 24 hours before the story becomes 'I pulled onto a dual carriageway and an M3 shot past'.
We are becoming (Quite usefully for Mike, I'm sure) rather sidetracked by the 'is the race even physically possible on the road claimed' debate. Whilst I am quite sure that 30-100-0 is possible on a 0.6 mile stretch of dual carriageway, it's the 30-130+-20 part that the M3 would have had to do that is dubious - even if it is possible it's a pretty reckless piece of driving, no? Those sort of speeds in a 'race' on a road with such little length? It's an urban DC as well, isnt it, its in the middle of Newport? It certainly was last time I drove down it, but of course that was in another universe as Mike says I have no personal experience of said road.
Either way this nicely glosses over the fact that Mike claims he raced an M3 and was 'level until 90', which a year later had a failed head gasket, which was then subesequently sold to a new buyer who hasnt noticed, even though he's only owned the Focus for 9 months.
I have no doubt that if we can continue arguing this for several more days Mikes story will have evolved still further. This is what happens, he thinks of something, posts it, and then the story evolves to try and suit whatever it is people disagree with throughout the rest of the thread.
Happily, though, this makes for hilarious reading and is jolly good fun
Hang on, let me quote you what I originally said.
Even you, the detail master himself missed this out? Did he forget? Not likely. Did he omit this detail because it works the argument in his favour? Almost certainly.
Oh and hang on, is that 90MPH mentioned in the first instance? I think it was, but Fox has been telling you that I introduced this figure magically half way through the argument? He wouldn't lie or twist a story to gain an advantage in an argument, would he?
What has happened is classic, he thought he had another line of argument in which to prove me wrong, at the point where I proved the only bit I can actually prove he falls back to the original argument, which he has been basing on a twisted truth the whole time.
</Thread>
Last edited:
Well, I'm not taking it seriously, which is why I'm trying not to insult you.
Its just a good laugh, at your expense, fair enough.
You keep coming back for more, you live under the bridge, admit it.
Call me Billy.
90-100. Now its just 90. Where did 100mph come from? To make it all seem even more uber?
No, not really. Losing track of a 10 page MikeH fantasy thread isnt hard to do.
It's not like, for example, forgetting you'd not owned your Focus for a year. Which is the main point. We know this never happened because you didnt have your car at the time you say it took place. Hurried attempts to convince us you simply misjudged the time are futile, as its pretty obvious that didnt happen.
You've proved nothing at all except in your own mind, really. Where is the 'proof' you had your Focus a year ago? Where is the 'proof' an M3 with a failed head gasket drives completely normally? etc
This whole argument should have ended when we pointed out you didnt have your Focus in 2009, so it was impossible that you could have raced an M3 in it which had a failed head gasket a year later. But no, you kept going, even though we'd already at that point demonstrated clearly how your story was fabricated.
Just to clarify for date purposes, when did your mate sell his M3 on?
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;17645719 said:
Because not everyone is as "clinical" with what they say, as you are. A year figure was off the top of my head - time flies, and 9-10 months isn't really that far off a year, anyway, is it?
Anyone with half a clue will understand a car with what is probably just a crack in the fire ring between two cylinders can run what appears to be pretty much fine, and thus I do not need to provide proof of this. Not that this sidetracked argument is really relevant.
You know very well that I have a friend with an M3, as you stated yourself, you've seen the photos so quite why the argument should have ended when I got the year thing wrong, I'm not sure? You're attempting to defame a perfectly innocent statement by saying it never happened - what, you think I go out driving with a friend and we're both in fast cars but we've never had a play? LOL.
As for when he sold it, I've no idea of an exact date but I believe it was diagnosed around two weeks ago, and he no longer has it now.
Last edited: