|
|
Post by mechafire on Dec 8, 2014 7:02:42 GMT 5
Mecha fire, how much force does it take to break a fang of that size? less than a tiger's. But the exact force in don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Dec 8, 2014 7:24:07 GMT 5
Mecha fire, how much force does it take to break a fang of that size? less than a tiger's. But the exact force in don't know. For what I'm about to say, I want criticism because I have asked many people to see if what I say is correct and have gotten nothing. Sports science did a test with a trained boxer on the punchometer, and he managed to do a punch of 400 lb while calm. When enraged and pumped with adrenaline, he was able to punch up to 1000 lbs of force. The average man can punch up to maybe 200 to 250 lbs of force. They also did a test with a tigress who playfully swatted a ball with a meter in it, and the tigress scored 1000-2000 lbs of force. They estimated that if the tigress was enraged, it would be able to strike up to 15,000 lbs of force. A male tiger being about 100 lbs heavier than the female by my estimation should be able to do maybe somewhere along the lines of 17,000 to 20,000 lbs of force. Does this seem accurate? If not, please correct me, but in any case, isn't a paw swipe or a few enough to break the sabertooth's fangs? Felines do after all go for face shots. |
|
guategojira
Junior Member
Now I become death, the destroyer of worlds!
Posts: 160 
|
Post by guategojira on Dec 8, 2014 9:28:03 GMT 5
New data suggests that Ngandong tiger was barely any larger than a modern day Siberian tiger, it averaged around 235 kg (518 pounds). The S. populator would walk this match-up. Here's the humerus bone of a modern Siberian tiger (P. tigris altaica) compared to that of a Ngandong tiger (P. tigris soloensis Ngandong). As you can see, the bones are almost identical in size, with the humerus of the Ngandong tiger being just 8.5 mm longer.  Vod, you are incorrect here, my friend. There is no such thing as an average of 235 kg for the Ngandong tiger, where you get that??? That is the average of the male Bengal tigers from Nepal (Smith et al. 1983). There are only 7 specimens of Ngandong tigers available, all of them fragmentary (although complete in they single form), from different individuals and from different sexes, there are three carnassial teeth, one single skull, one mandible, two humerus and the huge femur (I repeat, none of them from the same specimen). Using the formulas of Van Valkenburg (1990), Legendre & Roth (1988), Sorkin (2008) and Christiansen & Harris (2005; 2009), the smallest and the largest Ngandong specimen were of 143 - 368 kg (smallest female - largest male, respectively). As you can see, the figure of 235 kg is incorrect (where it came from?). Check this topic, here are the full calculations from all the available specimens of the Ngandong tiger. Apart from them, there are no new specimens reported: animalbattle.yuku.com/topic/21/body-size-weight-Ngandong-tiger-Panthera-tigris-soloens?page=5#.VIUp58kXK7USpecial view on post 91, there are the weights and the full chart. At the end, there is no such thing as an average of 235 for Ngandong tigers. In fact, if we use only the large specimens, estimated to be "males", the average will be of 274.6 kg (n=5; range 222.5 - 368.2 kg). Hope this helps to clarify the issue. Finally, this comparative image that you post was made by me, only with the objective to see if the humerus were more robust (or not) in comparison with the modern tigers. In this case, it resulted that in fact, the humerus of the Ngandong tiger were slightly more robust than the humerus from the Amur tiger, if scaled at the same size. Besides, all the specimens of the Ngandong tiger are of the same size of the modern Amur-Bengal tiger, with the exception of that humerus (which is slightly longer) and the giant femur of 480 mm. Is this last bone the one that show the giant size of this extinct tiger. Hope this help to clarify the issue about the weight of the giant Ngandong tiger ( Panthera tigris soloensis). Now, on the Smilodon populator size, in fact, it was not significantly larger than the largest modern tigers, but it was way more robust. One complete skeleton in Argentina (one of the largest) measure about 2 meter long and over 1 m at the shoulder. With muscles and cartilage, the animal probably measured about 220-230 cm between pegs and at 120 cm in shoulder height, this is supported by Anton (2013). On the weight issue, Christiansen & Harris (2005) calculated a maximum of up to 360 kg, however as they don't used the largest specimens, they suggested that the largest S. populator specimens probably weighed up to 400 kg or slightly more. In this case, Smilodon populator was probably the heaviest cat that have ever existed, a true tank in all the form. Now, who will win? Well, that will depend of your point of view, my job has been done here.  |
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Dec 8, 2014 11:22:22 GMT 5
less than a tiger's. But the exact force in don't know. For what I'm about to say, I want criticism because I have asked many people to see if what I say is correct and have gotten nothing. Sports science did a test with a trained boxer on the punchometer, and he managed to do a punch of 400 lb while calm. When enraged and pumped with adrenaline, he was able to punch up to 1000 lbs of force. The average man can punch up to maybe 200 to 250 lbs of force. They also did a test with a tigress who playfully swatted a ball with a meter in it, and the tigress scored 1000-2000 lbs of force. They estimated that if the tigress was enraged, it would be able to strike up to 15,000 lbs of force. A male tiger being about 100 lbs heavier than the female by my estimation should be able to do maybe somewhere along the lines of 17,000 to 20,000 lbs of force. Does this seem accurate? If not, please correct me, but in any case, isn't a paw swipe or a few enough to break the sabertooth's fangs? Felines do after all go for face shots. i haven't seen those measurements for punching forces. But I doubt a few smacks to the face would snap those sabers. Remeber these are animals that would have hunted prey like bison and had to fight with American lions, bears, and each other. Yet they were able to compete, and remember, those canines don't grow back. I would think their teeth would have to be fairly durable. |
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Dec 8, 2014 12:27:45 GMT 5
I also picture how difficult it could be for the Saber to get in the killing bite because they had to subdue their prey/opponent and get in the right bite. They can only target one specific area. It was proven that it would be unlikely to outright impossible for the Saber to go for stomach attacks because the fangs would actually simply just flail the stomach. It would need to leverage it's jaw just right to bite and tear the stomach open, while a tiger would have no issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Dec 8, 2014 13:07:07 GMT 5
I also picture how difficult it could be for the Saber to get in the killing bite because they had to subdue their prey/opponent and get in the right bite. They can only target one specific area. It was proven that it would be unlikely to outright impossible for the Saber to go for stomach attacks because the fangs would actually simply just flail the stomach. It would need to leverage it's jaw just right to bite and tear the stomach open, while a tiger would have no issue. All cats need to get in to a favourable position to get a killing bite. Maybe the smilodon more so, but it has it's more robust to make up for it. I seen a documenty where a bunch of people tried to use a fake smilodon skull bite a cow's stomach and failed. But a tiger is not a cow. I doubt its diameter would be too laarge for a smilodon to bite. plus I don't think stomach bites would be all that large a factor anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Dec 8, 2014 13:23:40 GMT 5
That documentary is what I watched and why I think that it would be hard for the sabertooth to get in the killing bite.
|
|
|
|
Post by 0ldgrizz on Dec 8, 2014 15:17:40 GMT 5
606 pound tiger vs 660 pound saber-toothed cat; at very near weight parity I would call this a draw. Smilodon is stronger. The tiger has speed and agility and does not have to be so careful with his biting. A great deal of damage is going to be done with paw swipes. I wouldn't bet too heavily either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 8, 2014 20:09:11 GMT 5
For what I'm about to say, I want criticism because I have asked many people to see if what I say is correct and have gotten nothing. Sports science did a test with a trained boxer on the punchometer, and he managed to do a punch of 400 lb while calm. When enraged and pumped with adrenaline, he was able to punch up to 1000 lbs of force. The average man can punch up to maybe 200 to 250 lbs of force. They also did a test with a tigress who playfully swatted a ball with a meter in it, and the tigress scored 1000-2000 lbs of force. They estimated that if the tigress was enraged, it would be able to strike up to 15,000 lbs of force. A male tiger being about 100 lbs heavier than the female by my estimation should be able to do maybe somewhere along the lines of 17,000 to 20,000 lbs of force. Does this seem accurate? The amount of force that results from a punch or swipe depends on how much the object that is attacked yields, so it’s very difficult to compare someone hitting a wall to someone hitting a punching bag, or someone’s head. Someone with the same strenght will be able to excert greater force on something that’s less mobile because the decelleration during impact is quicker and the target as a whole doesn’t move in the direction of the strike. So the figures aren’t comparable among themselves. What’s the source for the measurements? At least the upper figures are extremely hard to believe considering it was swiping a ball, especially the estimated "enraged" force (which isn’t consistent with the proportion the same thing was greater in humans, which would suggest far more modest values of 2500-5000lbs). Considering humans can punch out each other’s teeth, why not? But that goes both ways. I don’t think machairodontine canines are as ludicrously fragile as some seem to believe (being very thick), despite giving superior leverage to a swipe aimed at their tips, and against pantherines, Smilodon populator wouldn’t merely have the advantage of greater size, but also a tremendously robust built particularly adapted for powerful grappling. A normal hit to the face probably wouldn’t do much more to a Smilodon than to any other cat, since if anything the teeth are thicker than normal pantherine canines. Only by exploiting their lenght they might be more susceptible to being broken. RE: Ability to bite during fighting, I think all cats are rather limited in that regard when it’s about killing large prey. The difference is that a sabre-toothed throat bite would actually be a much quicker killing tool. as for the belly-biting, it would of course require a huge gape, but I think it was found to be impossible on animals the size of large bovines, not impossible on animals smaller than itself. |
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Dec 9, 2014 0:21:04 GMT 5
According to Mauricio Anton, in his blog, there are skulls of Smilodon and dire wolves with clear saber punctures, maybe when hunting did Smilodon care about being delicate with their teeth but it seems that doesn't appear to be the case when it came to killing competitors. guategojiraHi! it's been a while. On topic why Sorkin (2008)? he presents no formulas, resorting to simple isometric scaling using data from the literature. Anyway, what equation gave you 368kg? Christiansen and Harris (2005) femur length and femur articular width equations give only 300kg and 214kg respectively for the owner of the large femur. I tested them with their tiger sample an found that on average the actual weight was 13.3% greater than the mean of the two equations (254kg in this case), thus an estimate of ~290kg (range 270-320kg) for the owner of the giant femur. Said femur is very long yes but it is very gracile, you had already compared its distal width against those of Christiansen's and Harris (2005) sample and came out ok but you didn't realize that you were comparing distal width to articular (trochlear) widths thus exaggerating the actual relative thickness of the giant femur. The correct value for comparison is easy to estimate from the photos though, ~84.8mm or 17.67% of the total length, compared to 18.84% +-0.63% mean of the sample, all the tigers fall close to or within one standard deviation but the Ngandong tiger femur is pushing two standard deviations despite the impression of great size conferred by its length, in fact it is only 4.4% wider than the femur of the 225kg tiger. The original photo comparison of the humerus I think is unfair to both tigers, first, because while that Siberian tiger humerus is very long, it is gracile, the other Siberian tiger humeri in Christiansen and Harris (2005) had greater shaft circumference despite being 1 and 2cm shorter, so yeah the Ngandong tiger humerus is big and more robust than the one in the comparison... but probably no more robust than the shortest, stoutest Siberian tiger humerus in Christiansen and Harris (2005). |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 9, 2014 0:52:41 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 9, 2014 1:21:07 GMT 5
They are? I think I remember reading they're thicker than pantherine canines relative to their bite force, but flat out thicker?
Re bone penetrating: that should be even more proof that even hard parts aren't safe from slicing dentition at times.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 9, 2014 2:52:23 GMT 5
That’s not based on proper measurements of course, but looking at skulls, they seemed not just longer but larger overall, including in thickness. Tough on closer tought I must admit that perhaps that’s stretching it, seeing as how Smilodon just has a proportionately smaller skull (another bear-like characteristic I might add). In any case they aren’t that thin, and this large size (in contrast to the smaller but more numerous teeth in ziphodont reptiles) may have evolved to avoid breakage of individual teeth, since a tooth could not be replaced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 9, 2014 3:42:44 GMT 5
They are? I think I remember reading they're thicker than pantherine canines relative to their bite force, but flat out thicker? Re bone penetrating: that should be even more proof that even hard parts aren't safe from slicing dentition at times. Thicker when talking about edges? Well depending on size, anything goes here; even though the maxillary canines of smilodon have been described as laterally-compressed and knife-like, a much older and larger smilodon individual would certainly have the potential to have very thickly-edged teeth, even more-so than those of a compared tiger or lion specimen. And talk about bone penetration. This can mean anything, whether it be tiny, insufficient indentations within a piece of bone or a fine hole penetrating through the entire piece. Slicing dentition causing the former is extremely insignificant |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 9, 2014 3:45:01 GMT 5
Theropod, I don't think a large size means anything when it comes to prevention of breaking: the "adult" teeth of mammals like humans and dogs are designed to be permanent regardless of size. In fact, a longer tooth length would make them much more vulnerable when it comes to fighting
|
|
