Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Cooking > Professional Food Preparation > Re: Viking rang...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 30 of 38 Topic 105 of 177
Post > Topic >>

Re: Viking range quality

by "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Oct 1, 2005 at 06:26 PM

FDR wrote:
> 
> "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:433EB273.FCFD4DBE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > FDR wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> news:433E9690.1DF7D9C2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > FDR wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >> news:iHn%e.734$qX7.216@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Del Cecchi" <dcecchi.nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> What makes you say that?  They'd rate the Honda Civic better
than
> >> >> >>> a
> >> >> >>> Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups.
> >> >> >> Why not?  By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior
to a
> >> >> >> Lamborghini.  The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and
> >> >> >> looking
> >> >> >> good.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But you don't buy a Lambo for practical reasons. CR thinks we
should
> >> >> > all
> >> >> > drive Honda or similar autos.
> >> >>
> >> >> People that buy CR mag buy it for the practicality/value info.  If
> >> >> you're
> >> >> into a Lambo then you'll be buying a gearhead type mag.
> >> >
> >> > CR does not contain (valid) practicality/value info. Their
"findings"
> >> > are distorted, biased and not in any way based on valid scientific
> >> > testing or analysis.
> >> >
> >> > Pete C.
> >>
> >> Hey, I read them and don't agree with them many times, but what do
you
> >> exactly think they should do that would meet your standard of
testing?
> >> AS
> >> for cars, like many reviews they are opinions.
> >
> > I've read enough of them to decide that they provide little or no
> > information that is of value to me.
> >
> >> Firm ride, small back seats,
> >> cheap plastic knobs aren't something you need to do a scientific
analysis
> >> of.
> >
> > Actually all three can indeed have more valid analysis done.
> >
> > Firm ride relative to what exactly? An average car would be mush
> > compared to a high end s****t model, but that same car would be firm
> > compared to some "luxury" mush model.
> 
> I think firm is quite self explanatory.

I think it can be tested more objectively.

> 
> >
> > Small back seats for whom? A pro football player? An average teenager?
> 
> It's usually followed by the saying only a child could sit in the rear
with
> any comfort, ala the Camaro.

For cars like that, the back seat is most suitable for small rodents.

> 
> >
> > Cheap plastic knobs? What defines a cheap plastic knob vs. a non-cheap
> > plastic knob? Last time I looked I saw virtually no non-plastic knobs
on
> > any car regardless of price (in the "sane" range, I didn't look at
> > "exotics").
> 
> You surely can tell the difference in feel between a luxury plastic knob
and
> something on a cheap car.  I think you're being particularly picky about
> these points that I would find self-evident.

What might this difference in feel be? ABS feels like ABS whether in a
Hyundai or a Mercedes.

> 
> >
> >> Reliability ratings are another thing entirely, since it's up to the
> >> consumer to provide feedback on problems.
> >
> > The best source for reliability information is warranty claim data.
> > Outside of warranty period it's very difficult to get good data on a
> > large enough sample to be valid.
> 
> Do all or most car companies bother to provide this information to a
> magazine?

Not to an magazine with the reputation of CM, however the Powers stuff
is largely based on this data.

> 
> >
> >>  To do any scientific analysis
> >> would require that they gather x number of cars, drive them y number
of
> >> miles, and i z number of conditions.  Highly impractical.  Motorweek
> >> tests
> >> one car over 15000 miles but that's nowhere scientific either.
> >
> > They don't need to test each one themselves, a formal re****ting
> > arrangement with consumers would work. They would need to track each
> > vehicle from purchase to either a loss/sale/end of test period.
> 
> Isn't that what they basically do now?  Send surveys out and create a
> database.

A survey not the same as formal tracking from purchase to loss/sale/end,
tracking based on the submission of invoice copies, not just comments.

Pete C.
 




 38 Posts in Topic:
Re: Viking range quality
Dave Smith <adavid.smi  2005-09-28 12:23:53 
Re: Viking range quality
dim@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (D  2005-09-28 18:54:16 
Re: Viking range quality
"Edwin Pawlowski&quo  2005-09-28 21:47:23 
Re: Viking range quality
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2005-09-28 18:57:12 
Re: Viking range quality
Dave Smith <adavid.smi  2005-09-28 19:04:26 
Re: Viking range quality
"Edwin Pawlowski&quo  2005-09-29 02:40:41 
Re: Viking range quality
spope33@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-09-29 06:07:06 
Re: Viking range quality
Dave Smith <adavid.smi  2005-09-28 18:00:28 
Re: Viking range quality
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2005-09-28 18:55:49 
Re: Viking range quality
"Doug Kanter" &  2005-09-28 23:02:41 
Re: Viking range quality
"Matthew L. Martin&q  2005-09-28 19:08:10 
Re: Viking range quality
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2005-09-28 19:40:10 
Re: Viking range quality
"Matthew L. Martin&q  2005-09-28 22:58:02 
Re: Viking range quality
"Dee Randall" &  2005-09-28 20:53:48 
Re: Viking range quality
dim@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (D  2005-09-29 22:14:16 
Re: Viking range quality
Dan Abel <dabel@[EMAIL  2005-09-29 23:40:18 
Re: Viking range quality
"Dee Randall" &  2005-09-29 20:53:11 
Re: Viking range quality
"Pete C." <a  2005-09-30 01:02:04 
Re: Viking range quality
Dan Abel <dabel@[EMAIL  2005-09-30 01:25:43 
Re: Viking range quality
Walter Spector <w6ws_x  2005-09-30 16:35:39 
Re: Viking range quality
"Edwin Pawlowski&quo  2005-10-01 02:58:37 
Re: Viking range quality
"Del Cecchi" &l  2005-09-30 22:40:54 
Re: Viking range quality
"Edwin Pawlowski&quo  2005-10-01 03:49:34 
Re: Viking range quality
"FDR" <_remo  2005-10-01 06:53:46 
Re: Viking range quality
"Pete C." <a  2005-10-01 14:00:47 
Re: Viking range quality
"FDR" <_remo  2005-10-01 14:59:16 
Re: Viking range quality
"Pete C." <a  2005-10-01 15:59:48 
Re: Viking range quality
"FDR" <_remo  2005-10-01 17:19:24 
Re: Viking range quality
"Pete C." <a  2005-10-01 18:26:53 
Re: Viking range quality
"Pete C." <a  2005-10-01 18:26:53 
Re: Viking range quality
Tony P. <kd1s@[EMAIL P  2005-10-01 16:01:24 
Re: Viking range quality
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2005-10-01 18:11:08 
Re: Viking range quality
Alan Moorman@[EMAIL PROTE  2005-10-02 18:04:34 
Re: Viking range quality
"Del Cecchi" &l  2005-10-01 14:35:34 
Re: Viking range quality
"Edwin Pawlowski&quo  2005-10-01 23:33:52 
Re: Viking range quality
"Matthew L. Martin&q  2005-10-01 19:55:19 
Re: Viking range quality
"Edwin Pawlowski&quo  2005-10-01 03:49:34 
Re: Viking range quality
"Edwin Pawlowski&quo  2005-10-01 02:58:37 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Tue Dec 2 0:39:11 CST 2008.