Carcharodontosaurus VS Spinosaurus VS Sarcosuchus

Posted in the Dinosaur Forum

First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Since: Sep 08

Concorezzo, Italy

#1 Sep 13, 2008
Who would win? Just imagine they compete 4 a dead ouranosaurus...
sarco is red 1
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
spino is red 1 & carchar is brown 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Largestthe...

“I don't exist:youve gone crazy”

Since: Aug 08

Australia

#2 Sep 13, 2008
Well, spinosaurs would come last, and I'd say that carcharodontosarus might have been able to carry the carcass out to somewher safe. None of them would die, except spinosaurus.
Biggles

Swansea, UK

#3 Sep 15, 2008
Either Carcharodontosaurus or Spinosaurus.

“I don't exist:youve gone crazy”

Since: Aug 08

Australia

#4 Sep 16, 2008
But spinosaurus was the weakest of all, and not as agile as carcharodontosaurus, as the sail would have caught a lot of air if it tried to move quickly.
Celestial emperor Fang

Brooklyn, NY

#5 Nov 16, 2010
Spinosaurus
it is twice the size of Car,and two and half time the size of Sarco
MStar

Houston, TX

#6 Nov 16, 2010
No way.
EpicWeedle

Cockermouth, UK

#7 Nov 17, 2010
Twice the size isnt to far from reality you know. It was at the very least 50% larger, but i say it would be more than that.
A Pimp Named Al Losaurus

Rome, Italy

#8 Nov 17, 2010
EpicWeedle wrote:
Twice the size isnt to far from reality you know. It was at the very least 50% larger, but i say it would be more than that.
Carcharodontosaurus is probably 8 t, u know it
GarchompIsGodsAr my

Cockermouth, UK

#9 Nov 17, 2010
I said that because
1. I belive Carcharodontosaurus was less than 8t.
2. Spinosaurus could be more than 12t.
50% comes from the 8t vs 12t figure anyway, so its not as if i totally rejected it.
Karamuru IS Prestosuchus

Rome, Italy

#10 Nov 17, 2010
GarchompIsGodsArmy wrote:
I said that because
1. I belive Carcharodontosaurus was less than 8t.
2. Spinosaurus could be more than 12t.
50% comes from the 8t vs 12t figure anyway, so its not as if i totally rejected it.
U must not believe ANYTHIN, u must trust femur method, U BIASED TROLL XD!

Bdw, why arent u cautious? Puttin spinosaurus mass at 12 t (BY USIN FEMUR METHOD!) WITHOUT KNOWIN ITS WHOLE LOWA LIMBS is already TENTATIVE!

"Spinosaurus weigthed 12 t or more": DATS NOT A FACT, its just an assumption given by an extrapolation itself given by baryonyx specimens. Dat 12 t figure is dere just cuz people want knowin "how large da mighty gigantic spinosaurus, aka BIGGEST land carnivorous monsta was". If it was a 2 m spinosaurid, no1 would give a shit bout it -___-
EpicWeedle

Cockermouth, UK

#11 Nov 17, 2010
Ive always said Spinosaurus was 12t, i said so when i first joined topix and the femur length method just added a way that gets 12t+ for the thing.
Karamuru IS Prestosuchus

Rome, Italy

#12 Nov 17, 2010
EpicWeedle wrote:
Ive always said Spinosaurus was 12t, i said so when i first joined topix and the femur length method just added a way that gets 12t+ for the thing.
Da femur method is NOT DAT RELIABLE since BOTH its uppa n lowa LIMBS r TOTALLY UNKNOWN (except 4 a humerus, described by russel (1996))

Da HYPOTHETICAL 1.68 m spinosaurus femur givin 12.9 t is JUST an ASSUMPTION. We r ASSUMIN spinosaurus bones r simply scaled-up baryonyx bones, but dis could be NOT da case. Vat if its bones r proportionally smalla/larga? Da 12 t thing wouldnt apply anymore
EpicWeedle

Bury, UK

#13 Nov 17, 2010
ALL we can do is use its relatives to scale up. Due to that scaling up, i always use rounded down figures (12t and 17m instead of 12.9t and 17.4m) for caution, even though it is about as likely that it culd have been larger as it could have been smaller.
mattking

Winnipeg, Canada

#14 Nov 17, 2010
EpicWeedle wrote:
Twice the size isnt to far from reality you know. It was at the very least 50% larger, but i say it would be more than that.
Twice the size, what are you smoking?
EpicWeedle

Bury, UK

#15 Nov 17, 2010
Did you read the rest of that comment before replying?
Karamuru IS Prestosuchus

Milan, Italy

#16 Nov 17, 2010
EpicWeedle wrote:
ALL we can do is use its relatives to scale up. Due to that scaling up, i always use rounded down figures (12t and 17m instead of 12.9t and 17.4m) for caution, even though it is about as likely that it culd have been larger as it could have been smaller.
We could even avoid estimatin masses n simply say "Its a very large theropod". No1 forces us 2 say "it was at least 12 t n derefore da biggest n thus kewlest badass monsta"

U admit "its bout as likely dat it could have been larga as it could have been small": but u say u think it was likely larga; dan i say i think it was likely smalla. Its my word VS urs. WHos right?

Since: Dec 09

Atlanta, Georgia.

#17 Nov 17, 2010
Just a note, there was mention that it was possible that Spinosaurus could have been proportionately lighter than its smaller relatives (but to be fair this person also mentioned that it could have been proportionately heavier too.)

With everything we know about square-cube law, it is almost entirely assured that the far larger spinosaurus would have been proportionately heavier:
http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html
^Scroll down to 'Effect of Scaling Properties on Biology'.
"The bones and muscles of the larger animals tend to be disproportionally thicker and larger than the smaller animals. Yet the smaller animals will still have the greater relative strength that allows them to jump higher and fall greater distances with almost no chance of breaking their bones."

Elk are far bulkier than the smaller framed white-tailed deer, Tigers are far bulkier than Mountain Lions, The Water Buffalo is far bulkier than a Wildebeest. The examples go on and on. Those are all animals in the same family, yet almost without fail the larger relatively will be proportionately heavier.
The larger animals NEED to have thicker bones and muscles to support their frames better, because even with those characteristics, they are still proportionately weaker than their smaller relatives because muscle cross section increases only by the square of the scaling factor while mass increases by the cube.
To put it simply, here's an example: a 16 foot Croc is going to be 8 times heavier than a 8 foot croc, but it is going to be only ~4 times stronger.

Since: Dec 09

Atlanta, Georgia.

#18 Nov 17, 2010
In summary, EpicWeedle's belief would be more correct.
MStar

Houston, TX

#19 Nov 17, 2010
LOL.

Whoever is judging the RIGHT ppl WRONG needs to grow up. Like, srsly.
mattking

Winnipeg, Canada

#20 Nov 17, 2010
1)Carcharodontosaurus

2)Spinosaurus

3)Sarcosuchus

This is the order from which they would win with carch being the winner peroid!

Sarcosuchus and spino would probably lose to carch but I think spino would have the advantage over sarcosuchus because it had more weapons!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dinosaur Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
prehistoric smackdown!! 7 hr tyrannospinus 52
Mammoth vs Megatherium 12 hr Spinosaurus aegyp... 2
Predator X vs. Megalodon (Mar '09) 12 hr Spinosaurus aegyp... 816
Spinosaurus vs. t-rex (Dec '07) 12 hr Spinosaurus aegyp... 5,742
spinosaurs baryonx is a no brainer 14 hr spinosaurus baryonx 8
is the new posture and image of spinosaurus cor... Mon marco 1
Tyrannosaurus vs Titanoboa Jan 25 tyrannospinus 2
More from around the web