Re: UI Comment

[cobram@channel1.com (Cobram)]

10-03-96  00:51


 acriviel@mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu writes:

          <<Deletia of 2.5K cold idle hypothesis>>

 AR> as well with many automatics I have driven (hated nearly every one of
 AR> them, too!).  It is certainly possible that your scenario is plausible.
 AR> You'd think that the crack investigators would have thought of that,
 AR> though. 

     A while back we went through this subject thoroughly on the list.
     In order to break the brakes free (ie go forward while occupant
     "stomps" on brakes) you'd need 900+HP. I know some of the
     turbos were fast...but none where near 900 ponies under the
     hood. So any scenario where brakes are fully applied and
     the car moves at all is totally implausable unless the
     brakes were in precarious condition. (Which NONE of the
     vehicles involved were.)

     BCNU

... My guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's cars.

---
 * Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] *