"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c163ds$vdj$1@news.ya.com>...
> > > Nothing further from the truth. I happened to be driving calmly at some
> 50
> > > Km/h in a residential area. I was paying attention, as I always do when
> I'm
> > > driving. It was a perfectly straight dry stretch and excellent weather
> > > conditions. Neither me nor my passenger saw anything. We just only heard
> and
> > > felt the smash, then by looking in the mirror I could see what looked
> like a
> > > big stone in the middle of the lane behind me. It was a dead antelope,
> which
> > > had just jumped over a 1.5m deep ditch and into the road from behind a
> > > hedge.
>
> >But if you knew it was possible, you might have slowed
> >down at that spot, and the antelope would have not been there right at
> > the time your bumper got there.
>
> Your argument is totally ridiculous as my speed was lower than the average
> speed you'd have been driving at.

LOL. Look up the word "irony."

You have no idea what speed I might choose for any road. Arguing that
somehow you'd "know" what speed I'd choose *is* quite ridiculous.

> >Nobody in their right mind
> > drives this at the posted 55mph.
>
> Did you realize the difference between 50 km/h and 55mph?

I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote. Here's
a hint: your speed was about 5mph less than the speed at which most
folks travel on the road I described.

> > You example in no way illustrates the "blind bend" you postulate.
>
> If this can happen to you on a straight, then the chances of more
> complications arising from sth similar on a bend are also bigger.

You have no idea what you're talking about. By definition, if you
don't outdrive your sightlines, you don't travel very fast coming into
a blind bend. That is the only way you can stop in time in the case
of an obstacle that you can't see at first. Only an imbecile would
argue otherwise.

Your straight stretch has nothing to do with blind bends and
cornering.

> > > The possibility of a sudden obstacle in the middle of the roadway,
> however
> > > remote, is never to be neglected.
>
> > On a blind bend, stuff doesn't just magically appear, and that goes
> > for other roadways as well. I stand by my original statement, because
> > anything else is a violation of the laws of physics.
>
> I've been to physics college, so don't try to lecture me on that

It seems your previous lectures were no very helpful in this case.
Matter does not spring from nothingness in the blink of an eye. Well,
discounting electron/positron pairs from certain gamma rays...

> which means, wake up Jonesey, we live
> in a real world, not in perfect dreamland, as you're assuming.

LOL. Considering how much correct information you've imparted in this
thread, I'll ignore this puerile jibe.

> Now, the
> possibility of getting an unexpected obstacle in your way and having to
> brake as fast as you can is very real, and that's final.

Just because *you* say so doesn't mean anything. Funny, in all this
time I've been driving, I've never seen anything magically appear in
the middle of the road. What's more, I've never run into anything on
the public roadway. After nearly thirty years of driving in rural,
wood areas, and in dense urban areas with brain-dead American SUV
drivers, I seem to never get wrinkled sheet metal. How is that
possible, in your weird world where stuff appears out of thin air,
right in the middle of the road?

> Only when you've
> hit sth. will you realise what I'm saying.

Since I always give myself an escape route or sufficient stopping
distance, I expect my perfect driving record to continue. (Well,
aside from some speeding tickets, but that's life in underposted USA.)

> > I notice that you abandoned your other (incorrect) arguments. Wise
> > choice.
>
> Which is the same reason I haven't provided a reply to the rest of your
> claims, because if you care to read my previous post carefully, you'll see
> you the suggestions you made were totally unreal and I was never proven
> wrong.

Except you *were* proven wrong, in the absence of outside sources to
back up your claims. Just because *you* say something doesn't mean
it's true. If you have some links to prove your points, I'd love to
see them. I sure haven't found anything that supports your
contentions. I've found plenty that support mine. Go ahead, provide
links. Otherwise, you're just some kid being peevish on USENET.
--
Jonesy

 

> > Your argument is totally ridiculous as my speed was lower than the
average
> > speed you'd have been driving at.

> You have no idea what speed I might choose for any road. Arguing that
> somehow you'd "know" what speed I'd choose *is* quite ridiculous.

> > Did you realize the difference between 50 km/h and 55mph?

> I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote. Here's
> a hint: your speed was about 5mph less than the speed at which most
> folks travel on the road I described.

> > Your argument is totally ridiculous as my speed was lower than the
average
> > speed you'd have been driving at.

Since my speed was in your words about 8 km/h less than the speed at which
most folks drive - and that obviously includes you as the perfect example of
Mr Right - my point is now perfectly proven. I was driving more slowly than
you'd have been. Thank you for your "source"! LOL. Of course, since you
belong to the realm of what happens in a figment of your imagination, you
will also argue against the most common of senses and logic. If you do, I'll
just think you're even being more childish than you've been up to now.

> > > You example in no way illustrates the "blind bend" you postulate.

> > If this can happen to you on a straight, then the chances of more
> > complications arising from sth similar on a bend are also bigger.

Once more, if you bother to read all of our threads anyone in their right
minds would understand what I'm saying and how that can happen.

> > > On a blind bend, stuff doesn't just magically appear, and that goes
> > > for other roadways as well. I stand by my original statement, because
> > > anything else is a violation of the laws of physics.

If it's really true that you've been driving for 30 years, which I don't
doubt, you'll have realised there's always going to be that new unfamiliar
situation on the road which migh catch you out-of-balance. If you've never
hit anything whatsoever in all those 30 years you must have driven very
little if at all or then I'm sorry, I don't buy you on that one. However,
being that you're so perfect and all that then you might as well want to buy
the next lottery ticket and according to your sense of logic be a
millionaire on draw day - as that sounds more probable to me! LOL!

> It seems your previous lectures were no very helpful in this case.
> Matter does not spring from nothingness in the blink of an eye. Well,
> discounting electron/positron pairs from certain gamma rays...

Matter does not need to spring from nothingness, it springs from where you
least expected it, and that's as real as it can get. I've got a friend whose
windscreen hit a magpie when driving on the autobahn at around 200, and
matter was very real to the glass - i.e. he was only lucky not to be
carrying a passenger, which is the side the animal hit.
> > Only when you've
> > hit sth. will you realise what I'm saying.
>
> Since I always give myself an escape route or sufficient stopping
> distance, I expect my perfect driving record to continue. (Well,
> aside from some speeding tickets, but that's life in underposted USA.)

You'd rather hope, not expect as this is something only God and apparently
you can predict, dear Mr Nowitatall. By the way I've got a perfectly clean
speeding record myself.

> > Which is the same reason I haven't provided a reply to the rest of your
> > claims, because if you care to read my previous post carefully, you'll
see
> > you the suggestions you made were totally unreal and I was never proven
> > wrong.

Now, with all due respect, I have more important matters to attend, but I do
hope you are really lucky enough not to ever hit anything.

Yours,

JP Roberts

End of thread. Period

 

"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c1b8h3$erc$1@news.ya.com>...
> > > Your argument is totally ridiculous as my speed was lower than the
> average
> > > speed you'd have been driving at.
>
> > You have no idea what speed I might choose for any road. Arguing that
> > somehow you'd "know" what speed I'd choose *is* quite ridiculous.
>
> > > Did you realize the difference between 50 km/h and 55mph?
>
> > I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote. Here's
> > a hint: your speed was about 5mph less than the speed at which most
> > folks travel on the road I described.
>
> > > Your argument is totally ridiculous as my speed was lower than the
> average
> > > speed you'd have been driving at.
>
> Since my speed was in your words about 8 km/h less than the speed at which
> most folks drive

Obviously you have no idea what your are talking about. Either that,
or you are very confused. Is the stretch of road you are blathering
on about near Crater Lake National Park in Oregon State? No?

Try reading something before you type - it makes you look like you
actually engaged your brain.

> Thank you for your "source"! LOL. Of course, since you...

[snipped nonsensical commentary]

Ah, yes - the ad hominem logical fallacy. When you can't refute the
argument, attack the person.


> > > > You example in no way illustrates the "blind bend" you postulate.
>
> > > If this can happen to you on a straight, then the chances of more
> > > complications arising from sth similar on a bend are also bigger.
>
> Once more, if you bother to read all of our threads anyone in their right
> minds would understand what I'm saying and how that can happen.

Did you know that you are responding to your own words? Are you now
arging with yourself?

"Anyone in their right minds [sic]" would not confuse trail-braking
with using a handbrake. Your credibility is low.

> > > > On a blind bend, stuff doesn't just magically appear, and that goes
> > > > for other roadways as well. I stand by my original statement, because
> > > > anything else is a violation of the laws of physics.
>
> If it's really true that you've been driving for 30 years, which I don't
> doubt, you'll have realised there's always going to be that new unfamiliar
> situation on the road which migh catch you out-of-balance.

Of course. That's why you're not driving at the limit of adhesion on
an unfamiliar public road. Since that would be a prudent thing, then
the discussion about how the car is set up for performance at the
limit is mostly meaningless, because you are not even approaching the
limit, and have plenty of reserve to deal with these magically
appearing animals, or couches or whatever materializes out of thin
air.

> If you've never
> hit anything whatsoever in all those 30 years you must have driven very
> little if at all or then I'm sorry

You *are* sorry, but again, you have no idea how much I've driven.
Hundreds of thousands of kilometers, all over the western U.S. Heck,
to traverse the state in which I live, I have to drive over 1000km
(round-trip). I do it twice a month. That includes wooded areas,
open rural roads, and dense-traffic urban roads.

> I don't buy you on that one.

Well, considering your comments up to now, I can't imagine you being
right on this, either.

> > It seems your previous lectures were no very helpful in this case.
> > Matter does not spring from nothingness in the blink of an eye. Well,
> > discounting electron/positron pairs from certain gamma rays...
>
> Matter does not need to spring from nothingness, it springs from where you
> least expected it, and that's as real as it can get.

That's the funny thing about defensive driving - you look at your
situation and say "what if?" Then you drive like that "if" is going
to happen. Kids jump out from between cars, dogs run out into the
street, deer grazing along the side of the road decide that the other
side has better forage. Driving on the public roadway is an exercise
in concentration and focus - and barring really weird
fall-from-the-sky stuff, you *can* drive around your entire life and
not hit anything.

> I've got a friend whose
> windscreen hit a magpie when driving on the autobahn at around 200, and
> matter was very real to the glass - i.e. he was only lucky not to be
> carrying a passenger, which is the side the animal hit.

And no amount of suspension settings are going to prevent that. Or a
rock falling from the sky, or some other event that's just plain bad
luck. But you don't drive flat out around a blind bend - that's just
stupid.

> > > Only when you've
> > > hit sth. will you realise what I'm saying.
> >
> > Since I always give myself an escape route or sufficient stopping
> > distance, I expect my perfect driving record to continue. (Well,
> > aside from some speeding tickets, but that's life in underposted USA.)
>
> You'd rather hope, not expect as this is something only God and apparently
> you can predict, dear Mr Nowitatall. By the way I've got a perfectly clean
> speeding record myself.

Good for you. I don't drive as though my life is in another's hands -
I drive as though it's in *my* hands. And take appropriate action.
This mysterious power that places all sorts of obstacles in your path
must not like you much. I can see why, with your name-calling and
other uncivil behavior. I suppose I could chalk it up to lack of a
proper upbringing.

> > > Which is the same reason I haven't provided a reply to the rest of your
> > > claims, because if you care to read my previous post carefully, you'll
> see
> > > you the suggestions you made were totally unreal and I was never proven
> > > wrong.
>
> Now, with all due respect, I have more important matters to attend, but I do
> hope you are really lucky enough not to ever hit anything.

Luck has very little to do with it. If you wish to believe that life
revolves around chance, that's fine with me. But I don't buy it. But
why are you responding to your own words? And if you wanted to argue
with yourself, why involve me or alt.autos.audi?

> End of thread. Period

Sure. Your universal declaration is binding on everyone. LOL.
--
Jonesy

 

"Jay Jones" <jayjones21@***.net> wrote in message
news:ncSXb.39423$fZ6.36642@lakeread06...
> He's got some strange sources--- we all know the Prelude SH 0-60 was more
> like 6.7 seconds than 7.7 seconds... and you must be looking at a 700-ft.
> skidpad number-- different mags use different tests... check out car and
> driver from anytime in the 98-99 time frame and look at their car log and
> you'll begin to see things a little more clearly.
> The only vehicle tested that ever exceeded 1.0 g in the skidpad test was
the
> Ferrari F40 and F50 and McLaren F1. I'm not sure where you're getting
your
> numbers, but they are way off.

the Viper pulled more than 1.0g on the 600 ft skidpad

 

"Jay Jones" <jayjones21@***.net> wrote in message
newsIeYb.522$iB.257@lakeread06...
> You need to read the test results in the August 1998 Car and Driver:
Prelude
> SH 0-60 with 5-speed manual transmission of 6.7 seconds... 600-ft. skidpad
> of 0.96g. Go get the magazine!!
>
I highly doubt those number and I have a Motor Trend that has 0-60 7.5 and
skidpad at 0.88g I wonder if your reading it correctly.

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040216221230.27200.00002314@mb-m11.aol.com...

> Honda doesn't use the double wishbone setup anymore. They dropped it for
cost
> and cabin-space issues. I'll agree that Audi makes the best handling FWD
cars
> on the market right now, as long as we're talking about mainstream autos
> avaliable in North America.

they do in the Accord, TL but not in the Civic/RSX

 

> 5. BTW... since I'm an engineer, you can bet I check all my facts with
> rationality and logic-- if you continue down the path of arguing with me
on my legitimate points, you will lose.

I don't agree with this last part you've been incorrect a few times in your
post.

 

>I have a Motor Trend that has 0-60 7.5 and
>skidpad at 0.88g

Those are the numbers I remember seeing! I'm glad to know I'm not dellusional.

 

> 3. You haven't showed me with any tests-- I've still never seen a
1.03
> from any vehicle, but if any could do it, it would be a "supercar" from
> Porsche or Ferrari.
>
> 4. As far as your 0.88-0.91 range being the limit of front-drivers, I've
> seen tests of the mid-90s Ford Probe GT between 0.92 and 0.94, depending
> upon the test and the tires used. If memory serves, the 4-wheel-steering
> equipped late 80s Preludes hit close to the same mark.
>
never seen a test of a Viper they go over 1.0g a lot and the Z06 has come
closed to or gone over 1.0g.

that's about correct for FWD, look most can't go over low 0.9gs they
understeer to much.

 

"Jay Jones" <jayjones21@***.net> wrote in message
news:GbeZb.6362$iB.1288@lakeread06...
> Further debate with this moron is pointless... if he won't listen to a
> mechanical engineer, ignores published articles from a variety of sources
> online and what has become common knowledge to anyone with an IQ over 15,
we
> should all collectively ignore him...
>
> If he wants to rant on and prove his stupidity, maybe he should write
emails
> to Saab and Volvo so they can explain to him that in the poor weather
> conditions they experience up there, it is necessary to go to FWD since it
> has been proven to be superior in inclimate conditions to RWD. (PERIOD) --
> there is no discussion since this is a proven fact
>

when has it been proven that FWD is better in inclimate weather?? or is
just cheaper to produce more cheaply.