Re: spinning flags

[Josh Pinkert <flush@us.net>]

At 08:45 AM 4/1/98 -0500, QSHIPQ wrote:

>They blame the tires, Josh.  That's an opinion that has no reference.  So,
>then, is yours.  There is also the fact that a 64/40 weight distribution
>exists on the car.  I disagree cuz I drove one with different tires.  So I'm
>thinking maybe the tires wasn't to blame.  It's an opinion in print, it must
>be true.  Me, I'm just a goofball that drove the 'reference'.  So
documented. 
>

And the other opinion in print...that the A8 is 3rd ranked, must also be
true, or maybe it's not.  I'm not saying that it isn't true.  I'm saying
that you selectively choose which printed material you'll
believe...whichever works along with your argument.  We all do this from
time to time.  Sure....you've driven them all.  Back to back?  I doubt it.
Even on the same day?  Probably not.

We've all seen a car ranked 2nd in one mags review hit #1 in another mags
review.  Everything is subjective.  I've been commenting on their
review...and based upon that, thinking of what could improve their
subjective opinion of the A8.  Any change to the A8, and you say its not
apples to apples.  The A8 already has an aluminum frame and body.  Does
that make it an orange??  No.  A very common method of analysis (in
engineering and mathematical circles) is "All other things being equal".  I
say, all other things being equal, an upgraded tire package on the A8 would
make the car more desireable to ME.  And maybe the enthusiasts in the C&D
bunch too...

I don't care about apples, oranges, or bananas...that's not the point.

>>^^^^^^^^^^^Huh??
>Reread the article Josh.  From a money value standpoint, not your pref to
>audis.  New cars, btw, are rated based on past history of residual value.
>Betcha that number is pretty accurate.  Maybe an A8 leasee can post up.

Pointless.  A lease requires a guess at what the car will be worth based
upon previous and similar cars from that manufacturer.  The car has only
been out for 2 years.  A leasee will have leased an A8 based upon residual
values of past audis.  Not current ones (A4, new A6, or A8).  And the
current A4, A6, and A8 are showing to be much more desireable than anything
previous.  You know that...

>Your Mustang experiences makes me smile.  Do you really want to use that car

>for any argument?  You are arguing brand of tires.  Before you make the awd
>claim, you may want to go back in your C&D library.  You might be somewhat
>surprised.  You are claiming experience (n=3, well actually 2.5 given the
>above).  Tires and skill make the awd advantage moot, sir.  In experience,
and
>steamboat lap times.  Be really careful making the above claims, your 'n'
>isn't high enough, and documentation doesn't back you.

Hmm.  So you need better tires and better skill to make AWD moot.  OK.  My
point proven.

>
>>The A4 was released after the E36 BMWs.  And it has been judged better by
>>some.  The E46 will likely be judged better than the current A4.  It should
>>be...it's a reaction to the A4. 
>No, the E46 is the replacement chassis.  It will be compared to the "new" A4.
>And given history, Audi will scramble again, however, they are behind a few
>years in the product cycle already.

The new A4 won't be due until at least a year after the E46 debuts.  So the
A4 will be compared to the E46.  And Audi will have to scramble.  Never
said they wouldn't.  The market (not just Audi) always responds to this.

Enuff already...


- Josh Pinkert
- Josh@Pinkert.com
- '98 A4q 2.8
- ISO '70-'73 Porsche 911