[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comparing Units - specifically little q content
- To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Comparing Units - specifically little q content
- From: Dave Eaton <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:30:34 +1200
- Autoforwarded: false
- Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
- Hop-Count: 1
- Importance: normal
- In-Reply-To: <199803221433.JAA18651@coimbra.ans.net>
- Mr-Received: by mta MOEMR0.MUAS; Relayed; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:30:34 +1200
- Mr-Received: by mta CSAV05; Relayed; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:30:34 +1200
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Ua-Content-Id: 11C3BC1E2200
- X400-Mts-Identifier: [;7834301623031998/A46709/CSAV05]
number which the (usually 'merican) mags talk about are often bollocks...
take the mythical slalom number for instance. i recently completed a drivers
test which involved a few quattros (and fwd audi's) and 30 drivers of various
stages of development and a slalom run. 3 of the drivers were professional
same cars, different drivers, *way* different times.
there is no objectivity here unless the same tester is involved, and has been
all the way through (ie. the historical database). otherwise it's bollocks
pure and simple.
another example is that to hussle a q through a slalom is a way different
technique to that for a rwd, and is different to that used for a fwd car. do
the testers appreciate this? wouldn't bet on it.
there were 3 road testers on this dirvers course, and i was significantly
faster than all of them. they were minnows in the driving fishbowl of life.
another example is the slalom numbers pc mag gathered on the 993/996 porkers.
*same* time. comment was that the 996 was much better. huh?
>Date: Sun, 22 Mar 98 02:43:27 -0800
>From: Michael Williams <email@example.com>
>I am speaking only of objective performance, ie, numbers, and numbers
>only. So that is how you compare a 2 door vs a 4 door, straight
>across...i am going to get an email attachment wiht my friend's
>methodology prepared as soon as i can and send it off to you...
>I am not bringing subjective performance into this at all as that is just
>that, subjective. Subjectively, anything from a Yugo to a Viper to a
>Porsche can be number 1, it is nothing that can be proven, so the scope
>of my statements is soley in the objective...
>Michael Sheridan Williams