when has there ever been ANYTHING except philips screws?

I think that up to this point Hasbro's policy was to use triangle-head screws on any gun with electrical components - such as the aforementioned electric eel and comlink, and I'm pretty sure they were on the Eagle Eye as well. It makes sense to discourage cocky 12 year olds from trying to mod guns with electrical components, if for no other reason than to assuage concerned parents.

Andy's content is Andy's content. It's a thing we call private property. He has the right to all the property since he did most of the work. He has no obligation, moral or otherwise, to give it up. That's the beauty of capitalism. Last I recall, this wasn't a communist regime. He's not a pompous ass because he wants to retain the site he worked to achieve for so long. Why the hell should he feel one ounce of obligation to give it to any of you? See, what we do in capitalism is compete: go make your own site! He made his, now it's your turn. These damn liberals and their warped mentalities thinking other people's property, hard earned money, and lives should be interfered with. I hope he's sitting at the computer laughing at you because of your gross lack of creativity and ability. Do you really consider yourself so deficient that you can't recreate what he did? I hope so; I also hope Andy considers it a compliment that you love his site so much that you feel you have to take his property because you can't compete with its quality. Move to Cuba; your ideals might be better served there. Stop bitching and make your own damn site.

Holy Irrelevancy Batman!

Seriously, next time you want to rant make sure you're not repeating stuff that other people have been saying for the past few days. And make sure you don't sound like a complete idiot, that'd help too.

Like Vacc said, if someone wants to start a news and reviews site, by all means do so. When Vacc and I left NO we didn't demand that Hal relinquish the domain and we didn't steal any of his content. This site opened with a few new homemade writeups from Zero, a new strip from Groove, the mod writeups from my personal site, and a completely empty forum.

You also emailed a bunch of people who were pretty involved in the NIC, and invited us to join the forum before it was entirely opened to the public. That definitely helped to give the forums a jump-start and a lot of credibility.

How about making the plunger be moveable all the way from the front of the barrel to the rear. You could have a huge spring attached to the front of the plunger on the outside of the inner barrel with slots cut into it so it can carry the plunger correctly. To cock it, pull it allong the top of the gun, then when it gets over the back of the mag, bring it down where it locks into load position. After that, slide it forward into the trigger release, then it pulls the dart throughout the rest of the gun and expells it like a slingshot. I'm not sure if I'm making much sense to anyone, so I'll draw up a diagram of it later today.

A gun which expels a dart in slingshot fashion would probably have pretty horrible range. A darts just aren't heavy enough to have their momentum carry them through a barrel - plunger guns still utilize pressurized air to make sure the dart clears the barrel.

How would that work?.... What do you mean by a hose?

And where and how would you relocate the plunger?

A hose as in a 1/8 inch inner diameter plastic hose - you can get it at any hardware store and it's relatively flexible. I'd probably put the plunger above the barrel/bolt, and see if I could work out some kind of tab that connects the bolt to the plunger so retracting the bolt retracts the plunger directly above it.

If I used the magazine how would that work? The mag is placed wierdly on the gun itself. Doesnt the mag have to be connected to the barrel itself or like bolt has it? I was thinking of just leaving the mag there for decoration.

It's called a "bullpup" design, and I'm pretty sure that means that the clip is located behind the trigger assembly. It could be utilized in a nerf gun if the plunger was located somewhere else and connected to the rear of the bolt by a hose. You could probably place it in the upper part of the gun, and make up some kind of assembly that retracts the plunger with the bolt. But your plan is probably the easier way to do it, though it takes away some of the appeal if the mag isn't functional.

If I remember correctly the finances weren't the main issue, it was that he no longer wanted the burden of maintaining NC - that's why he left it up as an archive that doesn't require any effort on his part.

TIS, the last section of your post explains why its useless arguing about this unless you're talking about a general situation.

I can think of plenty of circumstances where ROF can be the most useful attribute of a gun. If you play indoors, or in relatively close quarters, I'd say it's extremely useful. Primarily because of something you mentioned - dodging. It's relatively easy to dodge a shot from, say, a SM1500, even at ranges of about 20-30 feet. Even the most accurate shots miss once in a while. But if you have a gun like the powerclip, with decent range and accuracy, you can launch enough shots (even a 4-5 round burst) that are much more difficult to successfully avoid. This also depends on the amount of cover - obviously ROF is less useful if, as you said, there are plenty of bushes or things that will deflect shots. But when there's relatively little cover, in situations where people are forced to move between obstacles often, the number of shots you can get off while they're in the open can make a huge difference.

The other thing we have to remember is that we're not talking in hyperboles - If a gun has rate of fire, that doesn't necessarily mean that it shoots 10 feet and in a 180 degree arc. When I was talking about rate of fire, I had a gun like the powerclip in mind - around 40-50 feet of range at least, and the ability to put almost all shots on a human sized target from that range.

I'm not nitpicking, I'm trying to determine the loads placed on different components of the design in order to make sure that some of the modifications I'm looking at will work. This stuff is still in the theoretical stage, but I'll post more about it once I'm confident that the design will work and have something concrete to back the idea up.

Well with a spring, the spring constant (stiffness) is not an average. If a spring has stiffness 13 lbs/in, then compressing it 1 inch would take 13 pounds, compressing it 2 inches would take 26 pounds, etc. until you got to compressing it 8.5 inches, which would take 110.5 pounds of pressure. You can't really sum up the total force exerted over the range of motion because it's a vector quantity that's determined by the position. The figure of 120 lbs refers to the force exerted by the spring at the moment when it is compressed those 8 inches.

My guess is that the force exerted by the spring doesn't follow the equation F=kx, where k is the stiffness and x is the displacement. It probably is determined by the integral of k with respect to dx, where k is a function of x (k=k(x)). I'm just not sure how the stiffness varies as a function of displacement.

Thanks flamebo, that's really helpful.

Mystic, while that would follow the equation, I'm guessing that because that is such a large compression distance, and because compressing a spring changes the stiffness, especially if it has relatively steep coils, the actual force is significantly less. Also, I doubt that many of the people on this board could apply 110-120 pounds of force with their right bicep.

The stiffness or a standard AR spring is about 13-14 lb/in. The XP srping is probably around 15-16 lb/in. When cocked the spring is fully compressed from a free length of 13" to 4.5". That translates into an intial force on the plunger of around 120 lbs.

I find it hard to believe that cocking the FAR requires 120 lbs of force, judging from the videos it doesn't seem to require that much effort on your part. Are you sure about the stiffness? If that's accurate, I'm guessing that the spring is constructed in such a way that it doesn't follow the formula F=kx.

Could anyone with one of these springs test the force exerted by the spring when compressed to 4.5 inches? All you need to do is compress it against a scale.

That said, this isn't about a hatred for you. I personally don't mind you and I don't think many people here mind you either, its the fact that you were a part of the Nerf community, and now you're a shell of what you used to be. To explain more simply, you have become irrelevant to a community which once prided itself on having members like you.

Love,
Matt

Thank you for posting on that theme without using the words "retard" or "troll". That makes your opinion a lot easier to respect. I'm going to try to get back into posting about nerf. My comment about school wasn't an excuse, it was an explanation for why I really didn't care about nerf for the past 9 or so months. I'm not going to pretend like that was something beyond my control that forcibly ripped me away from nerf. But it is the reason that I didn't give a shit for a while, and I'm in a different situation now. So I'll say what I said in the PM I sent to Talio - I'm going to post more outside of OT, and I'm requesting that you stop following my posts here with irrelevant comments.

On a side note, I'm working on something that would definitely considered constructive, but I won't post about that unless I actually have results to show.

-Merlinski

Oh, and Viper - If the hunter actually eats the animal, that's one thing. But most hunters do it for sport, and that's why they're different than farmers. It's one thing to kill an animal for a productive reason (food) and quite another to kill it for the joy of killing.

Thank you boltsniper for actually posting the first intelligent argument against gun control. I agree with most of what you said, which is why I don't advocate outlawing guns (I also enjoy the engineering aspect of them). Like I said in my first post, I was mostly playing devil's advocate. As far as targets go, I'm just speaking from personal experience, I guess a lot of it depends on where you shoot.

I'm wondering what you're opinion is on fingerprinting gun barrels?

And Talio, way to go, you've proved something that I've never denied. I'm wondering exactly how much of your time you waste trying to show people that I don't post outside of off-topic?

Seeing as its necessary to repeat myself, the reason I don't post in any of the Nerf forums is because:
1. For the past 9 months (up until 5/22) I've been at college, where all my free time has been taken up with either homework or drinking, and I haven't had access to anything that would enable constructive contribution to any of the Nerf forums such as guns or modding materials.
2. Every time I look at the general nerf forum, I find the exact same questions that I answered for the first 5 years that I was involved in the NIC, and its obvious that you guys don't need help answering such tough ones as "should I buy a nitefinder or a maverick".

That said, hopefully this summer I'll get a chance to work on something nerf-related, probably a homemade because I'm bored out of my mind. So until then I'm going to ask you again to please keep your personal hatred of me out of topics where it is quite irrelevant. Thank you.

We live in a violent-strewn world. If Guns were eradicated, we'd kill each other with swords and stuff. If those were banned we'd just beat each other up with our fists until a person died. People kill other people who don't agree with them, don't like them, or they are psycotic. There are many other reason's but I don't want to list them. Until Whatever religon you believe in's version of the end of the world happens, or we all kill each other, that is proabaly the way it's going to be.

Ok, could you please explain to me the procedure for a drive-by swording? Or even a drive-by fisting? That sounds interesting. You'd have to get the car really close to punch someone, might as well just hit them at that point. The point is that most murders involving guns are committed by people who wouldn't attack someone with their fist if they didn't have a gun. And the worst deaths involving guns, the accidental deaths or shootings involving kids, wouldn't happen at all.

Pretty much the only point gun control opponents have going for them is the point about criminals getting guns anyways. If you take that away, all that's left is "we realize its a bad idea but its in the constitution", which is not an argument you can stand on. Unfortunately, whether or not criminals would have guns isn't a point we can resolve, because there really isn't any evidence to prove either way. I'm of the opinion that the reduced number of crimes after gun control legislation is an indication that it does help. But without directly addressing that, I want to figure out exactly how crazy people here are. Would anyone here actually oppose a measure which fingerprinted the barrel of every gun made or imported and kept that info in a database? So you could still own your gun, just if you ever committed a crime with it, the government would be able to identify who owned the gun if they had the bullet.

I really enjoyed it, it was probably my favorite Star Wars film.

The action was absolutely amazing, from the very first scene, which was possibly the best looking space battle in any Star Wars movie. The movie immersed you in the action - unlike previous Star Wars space sequences where it sorta felt like the action took place in only a small portion of the available space. I didn't really care about how quickly Dooku went down, it just emphasized how powerful Anakin had become. The fight was still cool and I didn't feel cheated by it. The "Order 66" scene was absolutely fantastic - it didn't seem to me like it was too easy to kill the Jedi - all of them were caught off guard and in Episode II it was obvious that they weren't invincible. And Yoda lopping of the heads of 2 clones - that was awesome. It was also completely tragic and the image of Anakin marching into the temple with the troopers behind him was stunning. As for the one on one saber battles, Obi-Wan vs. Greivous was cool if a little short, and the climactic Yoda vs. Sidious and Vader vs. Obi Wan montage was awesome. If the Yoda scene was dissappointing it was only because it was impossible to top Obi Wan's duel.

As for the acting, the dialogue was poor but there really weren't too many scenes defined by the dialogue. The acting as a whole wasn't actually bad. Anakin's transition was done very well, and Ewan MacGregor was great as Obi-Wan. But the movie's plot and imagery were what really carried it.

The story was phenomenal. The reason for Anakin's transition was perfect - motivated not by pure evil but by his fear of losing Padme. It really made him seem more human and torn because it wasn't such a clear black vs. white decision. In addition, it fits well with Episode V because it explains why Yoda and Obi Wan are so afraid of Luke's desire to save his friends. The writing had it's moments too - I really liked the "so this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause" line. And I was happy that this episode was more morally ambiguous than the original trilogy. In 4-6, the Dark Side was portrayed as the path for those hungry for power purely because of selfishness. But this movie showed that even a desire for power with the intention of saving someone's life is the path to the Dark Side - Anakin's transition was selfish but not in the simplistic way that I feel the original trilogy makes it seem.

I really didn't find any discontinuities, "You served my father in the clone wars" is still appropriate because Obi Wan never really fought in the rebellion - he only fought for the Republic during the clone wars and fighting for the Republic is definitely serving a senator. I'm pretty happy with the Prequel Trilogy as a whole - it begins with an entirely different feel than the original trilogoy but by the end it is clear how the transition occured. It also shifts the focus of the original trilogy and the saga from Luke to Anakin/Vader - it was always supposed to be about him, but Luke sorta stole the show. I think his transition is communicated a lot more effectively now.

Nerforbust - ever heard of SSX?

Well... Yeah, Thats why I love Nintendo, games like that rock

My point was that there are plenty of awesome games like that for systems other than Nintendo.

So part of the atmosphere is for devlopers to be lazy and make more crappy games where you cant see youre enemy. It seems like to me just a cop-out.

Yes, because an entire game system's atmosphere is defined by one trailer .

Nerforbust - ever heard of SSX?

Whoever said that games are becoming more multi-platform is right. And that's the reason that most of you guys are looking at the wrong thing. A lot of you are dismissing the PS3 because Sony doesn't have a lot of exclusive developer contracts. But the PS2 is by far the best selling of any current console. While die-hard fans are likely to buy a system just to play a single game, the majority of consumers just look for one system that has a lot of games and that they like to use. That's what was so popular about the PS2 - there is a huge game library and it's controllers were better in my opinion than the X-Box's or Gamecube.

Merlinski, you're a dipshit. I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN, where did I ever say I was?

Umm, here:

However, I see it as a double joke cause most of use here minus Evil and a few other dipshits are republicans.

So you either called all non-republicans dipshits, or you suck at writing.

Oh, and BK. I'm not making this someone else's problem. In fact, I didn't even make the topic - I only made a comment about a desire for a political thread, and someone else who happened to also have an interest in the topic created it. In fact, it seems like you're the only one with a problem with this thread, and last time I checked, there wasn't a forum rule that made it compulsory to check every topic (tho it appears that you think there is). So once again, if you don't like it I suggest you stop reading and posting in this topic.

If you don't want to discuss politics don't view the topic, that simple.

The main reason I wanted a political discussion was to let self-righteous republicans (aka. One Man Clan) try and back up calling all liberals "dipshits".

Re: Gun Control:

My views on this are more moderate but I'll play devil's advocate here. Of course you've never seen a gun kill someone by itself. I've never seen a nuclear weapon jump off a table and detonate itself over a city. Does that mean that it's harmless and that anyone should be able to own one? Of course not. A gun has a very distinct and very obvious purpose, the injuring or taking of human life. Don't say "it's purpose is hunting" because I doubt that the pistols gun-control opponents try to defend are being used against deer. The correct and proper use of a gun is inherently destructive and dangerous, hence a gun is inherently destructive and dangerous. Yeah, there is range shooting. But what do you aim at when you fire at a range? A paper target in the shape of a person. And don't bother trying to fall back on "you have the right to shoot it at a range". If that's all you want, then have all guns locked up at firing ranges and only accessible inside the building. The basic argument that it boils down to is government paternalism and rights, etc. And the classic test for determining when a government has the right to step in and tell a person that they cannot own a product or take part in an activity is when that activity or product is inherently violent and/or damaging to society. The only societal purpose of a gun is to kill or injure, hence removal of the right to own one is justified.

It refers to MMO online gaming, not something I do.  However, I see it as a double joke cause most of use here minus Evil and a few other dipshits are republicans.

Umm... Evil was a republican last time I debated with him. And werd to CX.

Oh, and by the way, if you're so confident that liberals are dipshits, why don't you start a political thread and show us your brilliant political insight? Any topic you want

Here's an idea: How bout looking at how all these kids who have been brought up in a ridiculously nice, conflict-free environment think that the world's hell and that it's cool to be negative.

Seriously guys, do you honestly think any of the stuff you named makes this generation special? The decline of morality? That applies to pretty much every generation ever. Goddamn you should take a class about the 1960's.

The world has turned bad? When the fuck do you think it was good? The 80's? The 70's? Do you have any idea how sheltered you are? "The world is screwy now, with wars and everything that gives our society a bad image." Here's a piece of shocking news - there's always been wars, there's always been crime, and poverty, and strife. That doesn't make you special, and you sure as hell don't live during "hard times".

And if you think that all music now is just cookie-cutter shit, then you aren't listening to the right music.

As for what's good about this generation? Well its sorta hard to look at accomplishments right now, but how bout the fact that we're growing up in a time of unparalleled technological innovation, and the first generation to have grown up in the world of the internet?

A few more military history things:

Blackhawk - first deployed in 1978.
Regarding the weapon - you could potentially use the CAR-15, I believe that was the carbine version of the M16 used in Vietnam and I think it entered service before 1965.
The Russians wouldn't have a Luger - probably a Tokarev.
I'm not sure if flashbangs were used by the military that early.

Just thought I'd throw those out there.

I agree, we've pretty much got as far as we're going to with this argument and there really isn't much disagreement. Regarding the engine mounts, I've been looking into mounts for the RX-7's engine compartment. There are companies that fabricate mounts to accomodate a GM V8, but its incredibly overpriced and I've talked to people who have done it themselves. The mounts for a Toyota 6-cylinder will probably be easier (less cramped), so I'll probably look into the requirements and see about getting the parts machined when the time comes.

I don't have nearly as much experience as I would like with installs. Unfortunately my school doesn't have any dedicated acoustic engineers so I'm stuck with talking to people who have experience instead of taking classes. I've also been looking for a job at an install shop, but its sorta hard to get one just for the summer. Like you said, this stuff isn't rocket science and I'm very familiar with basic wave propogation, etc. so hopefully I'll be able to get some hands-on work in the future.

The Hennessey Viper runs 10.2's. It's not stock (clearly) and it still doesn't beat out most serious modified cars. If you buy one all you're doing is paying John Hennessey and his workers to do what I'd do to a Mazda, tune it. What it really comes down to is that a determined guy will always be able to build something that outruns production cars. Obviously there are trade-offs, and the statement that I can build something exactly equal to a Mercedes is an exaggeration. But I can definintely build something faster, and it is impossible to deny that a car can be drastically improved for relatively cheap if you want to put work on it. And its certainly possible for me to take a Honda or a Mazda and make it ride nicer than any Honda or Mazda on the road. If you want to say "It's still a Honda and therefore inherently less than a Mercedes", go ahead. But then I recommend you go out and buy a Mercedes C230 to impress your friends with *gasp* a 3-point star on your hood while I spend less on a car that's much much faster, with a kickass stereo system and a completely redone interior. I'm not saying I'm a better engineer than the guys at Mercedes. But I am saying that the guys at Brembo are better at engineering brakes, and the guys at Borla are better at engineering exhaust, and buying those components and putting them together is cheaper than buying that directly from the manufacturer.

It's like building a computer. I don't think I know more about computers than the guys that work at HP, but I can buy an intel chipset, ASUS motherboard, ATI Radeon graphics card, etc. and have a faster machine than anything HP sells for cheaper.

Here's where I got the Rockford numbers - its not hard to find:
http://www.rockfordf..._power_grid.asp

I'd appreciate it if you found a link to the page where you're getting all this info, because it doesn't check out with what I've seen.

You do have more experience installing this kind of stuff than I do, but that doesn't mean that I've bought one amplifier and consider myself an expert. I read pretty much all of the good online forums for this kind of stuff, and in my experience Rockford is considered to be a pretty good mid-level amplifier by people who know what they're doing. This is also the case with the professional guys that I've talked to.

EDIT: Dan, I don't have anything against Bimmers, I just think that you can make a car better than a bimmer for less if you don't mind doing a little work.

Like I said, you go do it and tell me what your car does, not what you have seen other people's cars do. Oh, and here's my car that'll beat it, Mercedes Mclaren whateverthefuck. I've seen it do 8.9. Does a Hennessey viper count? On a side note, I saw a BMW (I have no idea what model it was, but it was a 2000) do a 9.4 at the track about a month back. Obviously it's not stock, but I've never seen a BMW move that damn fast before.

My point still stands, however, that you will not get a car to feel like a Mercedes or some other luxury car unless you were to pretty much completely strip it and recreate it. You won't get the quiet , smooth ride, etc. Quiet especially. I know it is possible, but I don't know many people willing to put time into their cars like that.

Nice try, but untrue. The Mercedes SLR McLaren does 11.6's on a good day. Mercedes themselves list the 0-60 time as 3.8 seconds, a time that rules out anything under 11. If the BMW did 9.4, it wasn't stock, which proves my point. Someone bought a BMW and made it faster than any production car on the road, which it certainly wasn't before they bought it.

And regarding sound - that's what Dynamat is good for. It's not hard to cut down on road noise. Obviously its not easy, but is possible. When you buy a BMW, you pay not only for the parts but for the energy that went into compiling those parts. When I modify a car, I pay for the parts and do the research and installation myself, and that's what makes it so much cheaper and so damn cool.

You are right, I exaggerated on that, though not deliberately. I haven't really looked at any THD numbers in about 2 years because I stopped caring what people had printed since most of it was lies (and companies like Rockford stopped advertising those numbers). I went and looked up a few, and there are many brands that have numbers way better than <.1%. Audiobahn has a couple that are .05%, .08%, .02%. Alpine has a few that are .08%, .03%, etc as well. Memphis amps seem to have around .03% on average. I seem to recall reading a few that were <.01%, but that is probably my shitty memory fucking with me again. A more accurate statement would have been none of my amps have THD as high as .1%THD. I will say this, Rockfords new 2005 models look a lot better than previous years, but they still shy away from advertising their THD. I also will not believe they have gotten better until I hear it. I have had bad experiences with them... as well as MTX. I have owned just every amp company I have mentioned, and a few that I have not including Rockford. My experience is Rockford is on level with MTX... niether of which are much to brag about.

Rockford's 2005 line, which is mostly unchanged from their 2004 line, has .08% THD across the board, in tests compliant with CEA 2006 standards. If you look at Infinity's product page, they only advertise <1%. Not less than .1%, only less than 1% THD. Talk about shying away from advertising actual numbers... Additionally, Infinity amps are rated at .08% THD as well.

If you want to go based on personal comparisons, then go right ahead. All the tests I've done between Rockford and Audiobahn have resulted in Rockford blowing them out of the water. So we won't get anywhere arguing based on what we've "heard". But if you go based on statistics, Rockfords are on par with both Infinity and Alpine for the 2005 models.

Rather than argue with about it all, just get your car, do the swap and then come back to me once you have taken it to the track and tell me what it gets in the 1/4 mile. Alos, there are plenty of cars I can "throw at it" that will outperform it... not all of them are reasonably priced, but they will outperform it... of course this is where your point comes in that "for the price" etc etc etc... and I agree. However, it's still gonna ride like the car it is, not the car it wants to be.

Ok, I have seen, both in videos and in person, 1986 Buick Grand Nationals pulling down 10 second 1/4 miles. Cars that have $10k put into them. And there are street legal supras that run 8s and 9s. Give me a car made by any company that can outperform that. Hell, you said you'd give me plenty that will outperform it. Give me a single car I can buy from Mercedes, BMW, or Ferrari. Or even McClaren or Bugatti. You can't, the fastest Ferrari is the Enzo, and that only runs a 11.20 1/4 mile. Its possible to achieve things in your own garage that those other companies can't. And regarding the ride. If I replace the suspension, the wheels, the tires, the breaks, add roll-bars, etc, how much of that car is still riding like a Mazda? The bottom line is this: the only thing that makes a BMW so nice is how well the parts are combined and how good the parts are. The parts themselves don't cost $50,000. Hell, just the brand name alone adds thousands on to the cost. There are better individual parts out there. I can buy better brakes than any BMW, a more powerful engine, etc. for a lot less, and it becomes cheaper the more work you do yourself. Its gonna ride like the car it is - the sum of a bunch of fucking awesome parts.

This is the part where I get to see how little you know about what your talking about. No, it is not a deliberate effect. It depends on the car. If you have speakers in the rear deck, they will get more bass because there is more airspace behind it. Plain and simple. If they are in the doors in the front and the back, you will see that they sound identical. Also, keep in mind that bass frequencies travel slower than any other frequency (unless you have a higher-end Alpine with Time Correction) so sometimes the "bass lag" will actually make it sound like more bass is being produced because it is coming milliseconds after the rest of the frequencies which are all hitting at the same time. The airspace is really where the extra bass comes from in rear decks, however. Also, when sound waves bounce off of glass, those soundwaves are going to sound louder, so it's yet another effect that can come from having rear speakers, but only in specific cars.

The speakers were in a 1997 Subaru Impreza Outback, bottom mount front and rear speakers. It was tested from multiple listening points, including the back seat and outside the car. I could be wrong regarding whether or not is deliberate, but I am talking from personal experience.

There are lots of differences, actually. Rockford and MTX are both considered second rate amps to most car audio enthusiasts, so yeah, they may seem rather similiar. The newer MTX amps may break that trend since they are now using extant components (another company owned by Mitech) which may improve the sound quality and performance, but I have yet to try them out...

  Granted, I still have an analog amp myself, but the newer all digital amps are very impressive. Oh, and BTW, less than .1%THD really isn't that great... most of the amps I own are below .01%.

They are mid-level amps. Yes they're second rate compared to Xtant, but Rockford is definitely on par with either Alpine or Infinity. I'm not asserting their the best. But unless you're running something like IDMax subs and high-end Focal components, you won't notice a difference.

I'm calling you on that. Exactly what amps do you own that have less than .01% THD? Because Xtant, Zapco, Precision Power, and Tru amps don't even put up those kinds of numbers. Hell, the only time I've ever seen that is on Helix or Brax competition amps that cost $1200 for a 200x4. So why don't you actually tell me what these amps are?

Werd to Xedice for pointing out the hypocrisy inherent to that attitude. It's pretty sad that on a site so dedicated to modifying relatively cheap toys into more potent and enjoyable weapons, there is so much hostility towards people who want to do the same thing with their cars.

I'd love to see you spend that much money and get a car as luxurious, fast, and all around as enjoyable as a 120k mercedes. In fact, I'd put money on the fact that that is bullshit. I see enough cars and "project" cars everyday to know that there is only so much you can do to a car to make it better. If you go out and buy a honda civic and drop $50k into it, it is still a honda at the end of the day.


The only thing I'd say here about the Infinity Kappa series is becareful. I have hooked up a few systems that were all Infinity (my GFs car, for example, is all Infinity Kappa Perfect with Infinity amps and an Alpine head unit), and let me tell you those damn speakers are quite sensitive. If the proper air space and a certain level of air seal isn't present they can be a real bitch. That whole thing about rear speakers taking on low frequencies is some wierd thing that a lot of people think is true... I don't understand it. If you put the same speakers in your front and rear, they both do the same thing... and your rear speakers really don't matter at all anyway. More than 60% of what you hear comes from your front speakers and if you have subwoofers why do you need speakers to handle low ranges? The guys who win the nationwide sound quality comps every year have two speakers and a subwoofer in their car, that's it. Alpine is the shit, agreed. Also, your amps make all the difference in sound quality. They are just as important as the rest of the equipment in the system. Your whole system is only as good as the weakest link... if you bought $20 RCA interconnect cables, then your entire system is only as good as your $20 RCA interconnects. Rockford, btw, generally rates ther numbers a bit higher then they are capable of performing.

If I take a Mazda RX-7, swap a Toyota 3.0L V6 into it, and drop about 4-5k into the standard engine mods, I'll have a car with more power than a Mercedes SL600, that weighs 1500 pounds less, and has a better front/rear weight distribution. At the end of the day its still a mazda, but it'll still outperform anything you can throw at it. By saying "it's still a honda", you're just another one of those people who thinks brand name actually matters. If you want to judge based on the jokers who think that putting an AEM cold air intake and a "Greddy" decal on their civic makes their car nice, go ahead.

Regarding rear speakers:
They do get a lower portion of the sound. But the sound that they do get is heavily balanced towards the lower frequency range. If you have the same speakers front and rear, and you fade the music from the back towards the front, there is a noticable difference in the frequency balance you hear. The head unit I've tried this with was made by Alpine, so it's obviously a deliberate effect. I agree that rear speakers aren't necessary, but if I have some perfectly good speakers sitting around collecting dust then there's absolutely no harm in using them.

Obviously amps make a difference in sound quality, but when you look at the major respectable brands there's very little difference between, say, a Rockford Fosgate amp or an MTX amp. Go to any car audio board and ask them "what amp should I buy" and you'll either get 20 different answers or you'll get a lecture on how it really doesn't make that much of a difference. Obviously if you buy a $20 wal-mart amp it'll suck, but once you get to less than .1% THD it won't matter because the speakers will give you much more distortion than that. You're right about the weakest link of a system mattering, but a good amp is a stronger link than great speakers.

About Rockford amps, you're absolutely wrong. Every amp they sell comes with a "birth certificate" with the stats from when it was tested after it came out of the factory. The tested power is always higher than the product line's rated power. For example, I bought a Rockford 700S that was rated at 700 Watts, but when tested it produced 859. I asked around a lot and that's the norm rather than the exception.

A car is something that gets you around. Someone else made the same point. All the other things about it are just silly. It's not a fashion statement. It's not a reflection of engineering prowess (trust me, most of the vehicles people own certainly are not any measure of prowess at all). And most and foremost, it is not an expression of your inner desires and deep personality traits.

I'd say that anything you want can be an expression of your personality. If you want to use a harmonica, as Talio said, to express yourself then good for you. If I choose to use my vehicle, which I spend as much as 2 hours a day in when I'm home, how is it any less valid? And if I can spend $10,000 and have something as luxurious, fast, and all around enjoyable as a $120,000 Mercedes, it certainly is a measure of my engineering prowess.

And it seems to be a trend that whenever Talio realizes I'm right, he falls back on the fact that I don't post anywhere but in off topic. Since last time we got into this conversation we wasted a perfectly good topic, I'll keep it short. I admit I don't use the board for anything but off-topic anymore, which is why I post in the forum www.offtopic.com more than I post here. The reason I'm here was originally nerf, but I've sorta gotten out of it. So does that make my opinion on non-nerf topics any less valid?

Bottom line - if you want to reply to the fact that I choose to use my car to express myself, and that this topic is not just dick-wagging because I've already found several people interested in the same thing as I am, then go ahead. If not, don't dismiss my reply by bringing up irrelevant points. And don't bother replying if its not about cars, because I'm not having this discussion about my use of the forum again.

Xedice - I'm looking towards the Kappa 60.5CS components for my front speakers. Infinity's strength is definitely their crystal clear mid-to-high range. By the time I make this purchase they may have a new model out, but I'll probably still look at their middle-of-the-line 6.5" component set. As for rear fillers I'll probably use my current Rockford 6.5" coaxials, because rear speakers tend to take on mostly low ranges and the rockfords are great for that. My head unit is currently and will always be made by Alpine, I really like their stuff. My amps for speakers and subwoofers are also Rockford Fosgate, because they tend to be underrated in terms of power and the sound quality is not affected much by the amp. My subs are Image Dynamics IDQ series, which I highly recommend - they beat out $700 subs and only set me back $250 for 2.

Merlinski, why are you using an RX7's body if you're taking out the main engine system so you can do a bunch of stuff to it? Can't you just use the car with the good engine that comes with (like a Supra)?

I'm doing it for 2 reasons. Number one, I love the way the RX-7 looks. Nothing against the supra, but I prefer the RX-7. Number two and more importantly, the body is much better for performance. The RX-7 weighs several hundred pounds less than the Supra and has a perfect weight distribution (50/50) so it handles a lot better. Ask anyone who knows their stuff, even Supra fans, and they'll tell you its a car that's great for straight-line drag racing, but the handling can't come close to that of an RX-7.

EDIT: If you want to talk about Bush's effect on gas prices, make a new topic and keep it out of this one.

Hopefully two summers from now I'm going to have enough cash to buy a 1993-1995 (Gen 3) Mazda RX-7.  It has a rotary that I'll probably swap out for a Toyota Supra engine (I forget the engine designation) that will definitely get reworked.

I'm...not too sure why you would do that. The reason RX-7s perform so well is because the car's light. The Supra engine is heavier than the RX-7's rotary, and would probably weigh the front down a lot more than it was designed to perform with. Why not just put an enormous turbo and intercooler on the existing engine?

I've done quite a bit of research into this.

The Supra swap is not that popular, I'm looking at that engine because there's more options for tuning cylinder engines than rotary engines, and because a 3.0 liter V-6 can deal with a lot more boost than the rotary. It's counterintuitive, but the RX-7's rotary is notorious for having bad apex seals, and a single instance of detonation can wreck the seals. As a result, running a lot of boost is dangerous unless you run a very lean mixture which kills horsepower, or use extremely high octane fuel which is expensive and hard to get. Additionally, the engines very rarely make it more than 30 or 40 thousand miles under somewhat hard driving, and if I have a fast car I like to make the most out of it. And finally, the supra engine is much easier to boost to 800 horsepower than the rotary.

In terms of the weight distribution, it actually doesn't hurt that much. A more popular swap is a Chevy 5.7 Liter V8 in place of the rotary, and people have done this swap and maintained the perfect 50/50 weight distribution, only adding about 50 pounds. It's possible for two reasons. First, the rotary has a lot of rotary-specific parts that add weight to the engine - a 1.3 liter rotary definitely doesn't weigh the same as a 1.3 liter four-cylinder. Second, the mounting of the engine makes a large difference, so a little tweaking (putting parts farther back, etc.) can really help distribution. I figure that if its possible to maintain distribution with a LS1 (GM V8) then a Toyota 3.0 liter should be fine.

CX - I wouldn't worry about the Mini Cooper in traffic. Its designed by BMW, and they've always been very good with safety. I'm pretty sure the Mini has standard full-length side curtain airbags, and has performed exceedingly well in all its crash tests.

And I agree about the whole car-as-a-status-symbol thing. It's the fault of people who don't know shit about cars and think that a BMW is automatically a symbol of expensive luxury. Used BMWs, especially the low displacement cars like the 318s and the 525s, are incredibly cheap yet everyone always thinks "wow, a BMW". Same thing with the new Mercedes C230 - under $30,000 so people can buy it to wow their friends, ignoring the fact that for the same price there are some absolutely amazing cars (like the Nissan 350Z) that are just as nice and a helluva lot more fun.

There's a difference between gauging your value and worth on a piece of machinery and taking pride in what you've built or expressing yourself through something you use every single day. Would you bitch out someone for putting a lot of money into their home in order to make it a nicer place to live? Then why the hostility at people who want to enjoy their car?

I currently drive a 1997 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport. Not exactly nice, but it works and it's a manual, which is a huge plus because I love to drive and a manual gives you more of a connection to the car. Only modifications are an Alpine CD Player/Head Unit and Rockford Fosgate coaxial speakers in the front. There would be 2 12" subwoofers and a 700 watt amp in the car, but I'm at college so the subwoofers get more use in the dorm.

Hopefully two summers from now I'm going to have enough cash to buy a 1993-1995 (Gen 3) Mazda RX-7. It has a rotary that I'll probably swap out for a Toyota Supra engine (I forget the engine designation) that will definitely get reworked. I'm talking blueprint, headers, cat-back exhaust, cold air intake, intercooler and twin turbos, new camshaft and valves. I'm a huge car guy and an engineer, so this'll be massive. Not to mention I'll redo the stereo, probably keep my current subs because they're insane (Image Dynamics is the company, ask for more info) and put some Infinity audio components up front powered by a 300 watt amp I have.

So that's my ride. The reason I took the 3 minutes out of my life to type that is not to show everyone that I'm better than them, it's to allow anyone who may share my interests in awesome cars or car audio to discuss or ask questions. Judging by what people have said, that may be a long shot, but I don't really care.

Calling him one of the best would be quite a stretch. I've never seen him prove it. Sure, he's a pretty damn good editor. That's about as far as I would go. His visual effects aren't that great. It's cool that he does a lot of his own music, but I could name quite a few non-spectacular directors out there who do their own editing, score, and some visual effects. He seems like a really fucking cool guy, but he's not the best around.

What impresses me most about his visual effects is how cheaply he pulls them off. In general, the techniques he uses are really innovative and save a helluva lot of $, because he comes up with little tricks for stunts that would normally be big budget ordeals in hollywood. Thats partly because he does them all himself, so he always knows exactly what he wanted to accomplish.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find another director who does his or her own editing, score, and visual effects.

Rodriguez is not the best writer, that's his week point. However, I don't think its a stretch at all to say that he's probably one of the best, if not the best editors/special effects guy in Hollywood. Keep in mind that he composes the score, edits, and does all the special effects for all of his movies by himself in his home studio. The "Ten Minute Flick School" on the Once Upon A Time In Mexico DVD shows just how good he is.

I think this was the perfect movie for him because the style and writing were already provided, what was necessary was a guy who could seemlessly translate the style of the comics to film, and Rodriguez was probably the best guy for the job.

I just got back from seeing this movie for the second time in 3 days, and it is already one of my favorites. From the spot-coloring to the girls (all top notch, especially Alexis Bledel who plays Becky) to the insanely sweet comic book style, this movie kicked ass. Anyone else seen it?

Everyone who has said this is right. He was a wonderful, great guy who stayed with us so long. I think the average serving time of a pope is 6.3 years. Around that time most die from exhaustion from their amazingly hard, 24-7 job.

Actually I believe the average was that short because for a while the Pope was a highly sought after political position and there were lots of, uhh, untimely deaths. But bottom line, John Paul II had an awesome run.

Ok, this "you may offend someone" shit is just too much. If he wants to make fun of it, that's his goddamn right and if you don't like it then don't view the topic. Goddamn when did this entire country start thinking its their business if someone is *gasp* offensive.

And by the way, did anyone pay attention to the fact that Bush, while governor of Texas, signed a bill that makes it possible for a hospital to remove a feeding tube of a brain-damaged child without the parents consent, based on the family's ability to pay? But nevermind them, they're just poor people who don't have ties to religious groups.

``Kids who pledge abstinence are taught that any word that has 'sex' in it is considered a sexual activity,'' Unruh said. ``Therefore oral sex is sex, and they are staying away.''

Wow. This person may understand teenagers less than anyone I've ever heard of.

This pales in comparison to the trailer for Sin City.

Hell Yes

Best trailer I've seen in a long time. The music is insane, coupled with the spot coloring... just wow.