Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: NOS clarification
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:06:15 +0100
Remember the NOS system query, I mentioned Top Gear had bunged a top of the
line NOS system into 250 quid's worth of rusty Jaguar...
Well I've just caught it in repeat and I can give you the numbers.

A NOS system (properly fitted) can add up to 500bhp to a vehicle which in
the case of the Jag drops its standing quarter mile time to a little under
13.75 sec.

OK, so it's not that interesting but at least it's some intentional traffic :)


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 2
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: NOS clarification
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:43:01 +0200
According to Lone Eagle, on Sunday 03 August 2003 22:06 the word on the
street was...

> Remember the NOS system query, I mentioned Top Gear had bunged a top of
> the line NOS system into 250 quid's worth of rusty Jaguar...
> Well I've just caught it in repeat and I can give you the numbers.
>
> A NOS system (properly fitted) can add up to 500bhp to a vehicle which
> in the case of the Jag drops its standing quarter mile time to a little
> under 13.75 sec.

But, as I recall from seeing the tail end of that same repeat, it "only"
added 200 hp in that Jaguar, putting it at 500 or so. This was enough to
beat a whole bunch of other rather fast cars to the finish line, though.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't you know you know what's right?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: jzealey@***.edu.au (James Zealey)
Subject: NOS clarification
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 09:06:15 +1000
> Subject:
> NOS clarification
> From:
> Lone Eagle <loneeagle@********.co.uk>
> Date:
> Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:06:15 +0100
> To:
> shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com
>
>
>
> Remember the NOS system query, I mentioned Top Gear had bunged a top of
> the line NOS system into 250 quid's worth of rusty Jaguar...
> Well I've just caught it in repeat and I can give you the numbers.
>
> A NOS system (properly fitted) can add up to 500bhp to a vehicle which
> in the case of the Jag drops its standing quarter mile time to a little
> under 13.75 sec.
>

Now with 50%!

It's not much good giving us these figures unless we have the original
baseline figures to start with. I couldn't find them in the original
thread either. Once we have the original numbers, then we can probably
just say "instead of the original wacky rules, an NOS system adds X% to
acceleration and Y% to top speed".

> OK, so it's not that interesting but at least it's some intentional
> traffic :)
>
Message no. 4
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: NOS clarification
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:00:59 +0100
At 12:06 AM 5/8/2003, James wrote:
>It's not much good giving us these figures unless we have the original
>baseline figures to start with. I couldn't find them in the original
>thread either. Once we have the original numbers, then we can probably
>just say "instead of the original wacky rules, an NOS system adds X% to
>acceleration and Y% to top speed".

True.
OK, I'll see what I can dig up.


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 5
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: NOS clarification
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:32:56 -0700
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 09:06:15 +1000
James Zealey <jzealey@***.edu.au> wrote:
> >Subject:
> >NOS clarification
> >From:
> >Lone Eagle <loneeagle@********.co.uk>
> >Date:
> >Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:06:15 +0100
> >To:
> >shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com
> >
> >A NOS system (properly fitted) can add up to 500bhp to a vehicle which
> >in the case of the Jag drops its standing quarter mile time to a little
> >under 13.75 sec.
> >
>
> > >OK, so it's not that interesting but at least it's some intentional
> >traffic :)

OHH. You mean what I always thought of as an NOX system. Laughing gas by a
more tech name!
--Anders
Message no. 6
From: jzealey@***.edu.au (James Zealey)
Subject: NOS clarification
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:49:58 +1000
> Subject:
> Re: NOS clarification
> From:
> "Anders Swenson" <anders@**********.com>
> Date:
> Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:32:56 -0700
> To:
> Shadowrun Discussion <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
>
> OHH. You mean what I always thought of as an NOX system. Laughing gas by a
> more tech name!
> --Anders
>
>

Well, it's either a Nitrogen OXide system, or a Nitrogen Oxide System.
It probably shouldn't be a NOS System - that makes it a bit like an ATM
machine.
Message no. 7
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: NOS clarification
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:42:10 +0200
According to James Zealey, on Thursday 07 August 2003 00:49 the word on the
street was...

> Well, it's either a Nitrogen OXide system, or a Nitrogen Oxide System.

It could also be that the X should be subscript, to represent that a
variety of oxides of nitrogen are used? I don't know if that's the case,
but knowing how popular media seem to totally neglect the subscript
numbers in chemical formulas, it wouldn't surprise me if this were the
actual reason.

> It probably shouldn't be a NOS System - that makes it a bit like an ATM
> machine.

Or a PIN number, NVG goggles, or any number of similar abbreviations...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't you know you know what's right?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about NOS clarification, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!