|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 23, 2014 2:18:51 GMT
Tarbosaurus bataar
Torvosaurus tanneri
Tarbosaurus vs Torvosaurus
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on May 8, 2014 18:48:14 GMT
I support Tarbosaurus bataar in this fight, the reason for this is because Tarbosaurus bataar is larger in size though close to parity length. Torvosaurus tanneri is a far more gracile animal so it would be lighter in general. Not only that Tarbosaurus's bite force is stronger and has a more centred force of gravity due to how dimensionally larger due to its bulk it would be. Though it would be close with Torvosaurus having long powerful arms, wider gape and has a skull which has a mechanical advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Allosaurus on May 9, 2014 0:20:17 GMT
i'm thinking about leaning towards tarbosaurus, but torvosaurus would put up a serious fight.
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on May 9, 2014 20:36:11 GMT
I do have to agree the fight would be fierce
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Jun 13, 2014 19:50:44 GMT
Scaling the tyrannosaurid isometrically from Hartman's mass estimate of FMNH PR 2081 yields ~4.5-6t, however it could've been lower given the fact Hartman's estimate uses a density of nearly 1kg/l, quite high for my taste. 0.8 would probably be safer to assume, which would yield not much more than 7t with a volume of 9,200l, which scaling isometrically yields ~3.9-5.2t for Tarbosaurus bataar.
|
|