|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 27, 2013 21:29:00 GMT 5
I guess at least 9 tonnes then, as stated elsewhere. For the triceratops max? That seems probable. It is just that, with its change in average weight, its max likely went down as well. Honestly, triceratops was still probably the heavier animal here |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 27, 2013 21:59:50 GMT 5
That's very difficult to say, the sources are quite contradictory about it (and there doesn't seem to be any rigorous, published overview paper or anything). 4t is likely too low. My guess would be 5-6t being quite good, similar to an average Tyrannosaurus. What would its max be then? It is most probable that tyrannosaurus had a max weight of 7-8 tons (with the latter number representing an unusual size). If the triceratops is larger at max (which now seems more unlikely, given its change in average weight, but still possible. What was the average for tyrannosaurus? I have seen estimates ranging from 4-6 tons), it would probably have little to no issues taking on a lone tyrannosaurus. But if it is the smaller animal here, tyrannosaurus could easily cripple it with a hypothetical bite behind the frill, which could render the herbivore defenseless, as its long and straight brow horns worked best when impaling a target head-on, not laterally. But this could only really happen if the theropod manages to outflank its opponent. I still think the largest known (as pointed out by Fragillimus, those that Hartman shows seem to be a good deal smaller than that) Triceratops specimens would exceed the 9t mark, thus almost certainly outweighing a large T. rex. From the majority of specimens I agree that this would be quite unusual (but so is sue for T. rex), however Greg Paul lists two such specimens on his site. There really was no "change ina verage weight", nothing like a reestimation correcting the figures downward. It's just that it isn't common knowledge most Triceratops are well below the 9m, 9-10t beast that's usually listed. I'm feeling quite confident that ~6t is a good guess for an average adult T. rex, but that's what it is, a lot of guesswork on which estimates fit best, and the sample could be improved too. For reference, the average T. rex probably has a femur lenght somewhere between 1.18 and 1.24cm and be ~ 11-11.5m in lenght (of course this includes lots of specimens that aren't exactly what one calls "old and fully grown", but neither does Trike). |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 27, 2013 22:12:00 GMT 5
What would its max be then? It is most probable that tyrannosaurus had a max weight of 7-8 tons (with the latter number representing an unusual size). If the triceratops is larger at max (which now seems more unlikely, given its change in average weight, but still possible. What was the average for tyrannosaurus? I have seen estimates ranging from 4-6 tons), it would probably have little to no issues taking on a lone tyrannosaurus. But if it is the smaller animal here, tyrannosaurus could easily cripple it with a hypothetical bite behind the frill, which could render the herbivore defenseless, as its long and straight brow horns worked best when impaling a target head-on, not laterally. But this could only really happen if the theropod manages to outflank its opponent. I still think the largest known (as pointed out by Fragillimus, those that Hartman shows seem to be a good deal smaller than that) Triceratops specimens would exceed the 9t mark, thus almost certainly outweighing a large T. rex. From the majority of specimens I agree that this would be quite unusual (but so is sue for T. rex), however Greg Paul lists two such specimens on his site. There really was no "change ina verage weight", nothing like a reestimation correcting the figures downward. It's just that it isn't common knowledge most Triceratops are well below the 9m, 9-10t beast that's usually listed. I'm feeling quite confident that ~6t is a good guess for an average adult T. rex, but that's what it is, a lot of guesswork on which estimates fit best, and the sample could be improved too. For reference, the average T. rex probably has a femur lenght somewhere between 1.18 and 1.24cm and be ~ 11-11.5m in lenght (of course this includes lots of specimens that aren't exactly what one calls "old and fully grown", but neither does Trike). So the change in average triceratops weight only meant that few individuals actually reached the 9-10t mark? That seems logical. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 23:32:24 GMT 5
Triceratops wins due to it's more bulkiness, robusticity, and stability, along with a frill for a shield and 2 long horns for goring. If it drove those horns unto a Tyrannosaurus of equal size, it's more compact build would allow it to apply force more effectively, driving the horns very deep into the theropod, with a significant chance of causing fatal injury to the Tyrannosaurus.
Triceratops' weapons are the better ones in this face-off, and why? Because Tyrannosaurus needs to get a good bite at the legs/neck of the very bulky ceratopsian to have the best chance of victory, while Triceratops would just need to stand it's ground, turn to face the Tyrannosaurus, and gore when the theropod gets too close. Triceratops' weapons are easier to effectively use in this situation, thus they're the better weapons in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 28, 2013 1:01:33 GMT 5
I still think the largest known (as pointed out by Fragillimus, those that Hartman shows seem to be a good deal smaller than that) Triceratops specimens would exceed the 9t mark, thus almost certainly outweighing a large T. rex. From the majority of specimens I agree that this would be quite unusual (but so is sue for T. rex), however Greg Paul lists two such specimens on his site. There really was no "change ina verage weight", nothing like a reestimation correcting the figures downward. It's just that it isn't common knowledge most Triceratops are well below the 9m, 9-10t beast that's usually listed. I'm feeling quite confident that ~6t is a good guess for an average adult T. rex, but that's what it is, a lot of guesswork on which estimates fit best, and the sample could be improved too. For reference, the average T. rex probably has a femur lenght somewhere between 1.18 and 1.24cm and be ~ 11-11.5m in lenght (of course this includes lots of specimens that aren't exactly what one calls "old and fully grown", but neither does Trike). So the change in average triceratops weight only meant that few individuals actually reached the 9-10t mark? That seems logical. Yes. The individual sizes are not affected, it is merely a matter of statistics, the majority of Triceratopes is apparently well below that 9-10t region of the largest specimens |
|
|
|
Post by dinokid202 on Jan 22, 2014 4:13:12 GMT 5
50/50. this fight would likely be determined by which animal can attack first. if the carnivore manages to bite trike behind its frill, then it wins. but if trike can stab trex first in the belly or chest, it wins
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Feb 10, 2014 3:59:39 GMT 5
I forgot all about this. Alright I'll do my rebut probably today or tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Feb 17, 2014 2:28:56 GMT 5
Triceratops has always been one of my very favorite dinosaurs, but I will attempt to put my biased aside and analyse this as objectively as possible.
If they are equal in size, T-Rex would probably come out on top. But if Triceratops did really reach 12 tonnes, it would defeat any T-Rex.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 18, 2014 7:42:02 GMT 5
Some Trike weight estimates reach 12 tonnes but I recall T. rex too has similar weight estimates.
I'm not convinced of the mass superiority in Trike here, I see them comparable. Just like the statement that Trike is more powerful than any T. rex or theropod.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 18, 2014 7:46:35 GMT 5
You mean multi-digit tonnage mass?
I now think the largest Trikes were possibly at least 9-10 tonnes.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 18, 2014 21:34:11 GMT 5
No reasonable weight estimate of T. rex has ever reached 12t.
Hutchinson et al 2011 make clear their higher estimates are not plausible and therefore favour the minimum estimates (about 9.5t in the biggest specimen). Even the minimum models tend to be too bulky due to problems with the mounts, and, in some cases, the soft-tissue modeling, which artificially inflate the volume (as noted by G.Paul and C.Brochu in the comments-section).
Henderson & Snively 2004 give a slightly higher figure of ~10t, but it is simply based on misscaling a Greg Paul skeleton, which was never supposed to be 12.01m in tip-to-tip lenght (explaining the discrepancy with Paul’s estimates 6.1t for the same specimen).
I’m not convinced of that figure being reasonable for Triceratops either, but I think for a big specimen 9-10t are likely, while big T. rex specimens will be at least a ton lighter.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Sept 25, 2016 6:46:00 GMT 5
Classic matchup! This is perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Aug 18, 2017 16:38:12 GMT 5
At same size, i say that t.rex would win around 60 percent of the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 7:37:24 GMT 5
Even with the downsize of Trike, I still call it a 50/50.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 21, 2018 22:51:11 GMT 5
In these AVA threads, we generally assume one-on-one matches, unless the title specifies otherwise.
|
|
