What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never done?

Xeno wrote:

> Warp *creates* runout.

It sure does!

Tekkie+AK4- wrote:

> +-75 and gaining... I am just reading along here and getting a few chuckles
> as well...

Have you noticed that in the last 30 years, the *same* bro science prevails
on some people who can't learn logic ever?

People back up marketing bull**** (which they believe) with fantastical bro
science (which nobody else believes).

They've been doing that for as long as I can remember...

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> I learned a long time ago being late in snow is much better than
> worrying about it or having complications. I used to start work at 7.
> When it snowed, I'd go out at about 7 to clear the driveway and get
> ready to go. My commute was 24 miles and a couple of steep hills.
>
> I'm responsible for my car and myself and that comes far ahead of
> showing up on time. This year will be different though, I'm retired and
> plan to just go back to bed if it snows.

Your point is well taken that when *deep snow* is on the ground, nobody
expects you to be on time at work.

It's an unrealistic expectation.

It's *bro science* that someone implied that the only people on time at
work on days with *deep snow* on the ground are those with FWD cars.

They expect us to believe their FWD bro science!

Only a fool tries to back up marketing bull**** with their bro science.

Many a fool has tried. And still tires. Even 30 years later, they still
try. And yet, they lie to themselves more than they convince anyone else.

It's just not a fact that only FWD owners are on time at work when there is
*deep snow* on the roads.

Those who defend FWD on such merits are attempting to use bro science to
defend their own crazy thoughts - since nobody logical will fall for bro
science or anecdotal science that we've heard here.

rbowman wrote:

> I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about FWD. I wasn't going to
> reply but your utter illogical bias is starting to **** me off. End of
> discussion.

You missed *everything* I said.

I don't have a bug up my ass on FWD, since I already said that if you want
to haul dirt 1% of the time and therefore you drive a dumptruck 100% of the
time (so that you can haul dirt when you need to haul dirt), then that is a
perfectly logical argument for driving a dump truck.

But if you start throwing in bro science to try to tell me that you bought
the dump truck for *handling*, then you're just falling for the 30-year old
marketing bull**** that FWD is for handling.

FWD is not for handling.

So my bug up my ass if for people who lie to themselves using bro science
to back up marketing bull**** that they *believe*.

Oh I know they *believe* the marketing bull****.
What irks me is that they expect us to believe their "bro science".

So your *bro science* is where the bug up my ass lies.
Not in FWD (which has it's merits because it's cheap, and cheap is good).

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 15:00:43 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood > wrote:

>Vic Smith wrote:
>
>> The only handling that concerns me is snow and rain handling.
>
<snipped some nonsense about Hummers and dump trucks>
>
>> The winter of 1978-1979 the Chicago area had 90" of snow.
>> I had about a 20 mile trip to work, and I never missed a day.
>
>Again, if *that* is what matters to you, and if you think everyone in
>Chicago "missed a day" because they had RWD, then you're being true to
>yourself.
>

Never said anything like that.
I was driving RWD. Most cars on the road were RWD. I had 300 pounds of sandbags in my
trunk over the rear axle. Most people didn't have any extra weight in the trunk.
Most people who tried to get to work were stuck in the snow or turned around and went back
home when they realized they would probably get stuck in the snow.
The whole point of relating that was 3-400 pounds of sand in the trunk makes a RWD car a
"snow handler." Likewise, a couple guys standing on the rear bumper. When we had bumpers.

>However, if anyone else got to work on those days who had RWD vehicles,
>then you're not being logically true again.
>

I never said nobody else got to work. Logically, you're not making sense.

>It's ok to think any way you want as long as you don't lie to yourself.
>It's the age-old advice we gave 30 years ago to people who said the same
>thing.
>
>> Except when I showed up one day and nobody was there.
>> Drove back home, passing hundreds of cars stuck in the snow.
>
>I'm not as dumb as you need me to be in order to believe in your "bro" science.
>You think I haven't heard what you just said, a billion times in the past
>30 years?
>

Of course you haven't. It's the first time I wrote it here.

>The moment people start throwing "bro science" at me, I know they're just
>flailing for lack of any reasonable logic. Happens every time when people
>believe in Marketing Bull****.
>
<nonsense anecdote snipped>
>
>Anyone who is forced to constantly resort to "bro science" to back up their
>claims is simply lying to themselves about the real issue, which is the
>most common thing that happens when they fall for Marketing Bull****.
>

"Bro science" is your own marketing bull****.
The reason I mentioned 1978-1979 is it's an extreme example of your repeatedly claimed 1%
being wrong. The real percentage is - including rain - might average close to 10% of the
time I'm driving in conditions where FWD is advantageous.
The most dangerous times of my driving. Without 300 pounds of sand in my trunk.
Whereas RWD provides NO handling advantage at ANY time for me.
I'm not a car racer.

>> I was driving a RWD '67 Buick Skylark. With 300 lbs of sand bags in the trunk.
>> That's a cheap method.
>
>And I have a bimmer RWD that uses chains in Tahoe. No problem.
>

Again, you're not thinking logically. Your trips to Tahoe don't equate to me living my
driving life where it snows 4 months of the year.

>> Since 1991 I've driven FWD cars. Never had to load the trunk with anything.
>
>Again, you're back to logic and not bro science.
>If for 1% of the time you don't need extra weight or chains, then that's a
>fine reason for having worse handling 99% of the time.
>

You must be a car racer. I don't have worse handling with FWD. Better handling in fact.

>Those tradeoffs are yours to make.
>Just don't lie about them.
>
>The moment you bring in "bro science", I know you're not telling yourself
>the truth and that you are trying to defend Marketing Bull****.
>

You'd be easier to get along with if you didn't assume people are spouting "bro science"
and lying to themselves.

Vic Smith wrote:

> <snipped some nonsense about Hummers and dump trucks>

It wasn't nonsense.

Saying you drive a FWD for its "handling" is like saying you drive a dump
truck for its handling.

You drive a dump truck for a reason, and that's because it hauls dirt.
You drive a FWD car for a reason and that's because it's cheap.

There is nothing wrong with those reasons.
Just stop lying to yourself, and to us.

Cheap is not a crime.

What's a crime is when you say you drive a FWD car for its handling, which
is exactly like saying you drive a dump truck for its handling.

The only way you can support that argument is with bro science.

>>The moment people start throwing "bro science" at me, I know they're just
>>flailing for lack of any reasonable logic. Happens every time when people
>>believe in Marketing Bull****.
>>
> <nonsense anecdote snipped>

I've been discussing FWD for decades, where there are no new arguments from
those who bought FWD because it's cheap and then they try to convince the
world that they bought it for its handling.

The only way to back up those marketing claims is with bro science.

> The reason I mentioned 1978-1979 is it's an extreme example of your repeatedly claimed 1%
> being wrong. The real percentage is - including rain - might average close to 10% of the
> time I'm driving in conditions where FWD is advantageous.

We can resolve that argument easily with two methods, both of which work in
and of themselves.

The first is that to take your 90% at face value, which is that you have
lousy handling for 90% of the time to have good handling for 10% of the
time when you can't even drive all that fast anyway, so handling can be
solved with simply slowing down.

However, the second is more technically interesting.

How do you propose to support your supposition that FWD handles better in
the rain than RWD does?

> The most dangerous times of my driving. Without 300 pounds of sand in my trunk.
> Whereas RWD provides NO handling advantage at ANY time for me.
> I'm not a car racer.

You're using bro science here, since all you have to do is "slow down" in
rainy conditions, and if you really drive in *deep snow*, then chains
and/or weight works fine for the rare occasions that *deep snow* is still
on the road (rare being single digit percentages).

> Again, you're not thinking logically. Your trips to Tahoe don't equate to me living my
> driving life where it snows 4 months of the year.

I agree that a planned trip to Tahoe is nothing like living in the snow
belt, where I rode a motorcycle for heaven's sake, in the snow belt, which
means I learned all too well how to drive in the *track* of the car in
front of me, when the snow was a few inches thick.

However, this *bro science* of FWD handling better is what is the crime
becuase the only way the bro science works is that if whatever claim you
make for FWD getting to work doesn't work for RWD.

If you're saying *nobody* can get to work in your area if they're in RWD,
or that everyone in RWD is getting into accidents in the rain while the FWD
cars are NOT getting into accidents ... then we can talk logic.

But your bro science is super selective and just doesn't hold logic.


> You must be a car racer. I don't have worse handling with FWD.
> Better handling in fact.

You do?
You have *better* handling with FWD than RWD?

Pray tell. How?

> You'd be easier to get along with if you didn't assume people are spouting "bro science"
> and lying to themselves.

I've been listinging to FWD discussions for over 30 years and counting.
They never change.

Here's how it starts.
1. Bean counter comes up with great idea to increase profits $1000/car.
2. Marketing ponders how to "spin" it so the populace will buy it.
3. Marketing pushes chronic understeer & marginal traction in deep snow.

Voila!

A myth is born!

On 8/11/2017 12:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Vic Smith wrote:
>
>> <snipped some nonsense about Hummers and dump trucks>
>
> It wasn't nonsense.

It was.
>
> Saying you drive a FWD for its "handling" is like saying you drive a dump
> truck for its handling.

A dump truck is for hauling loads, not anything to do with handling per se.
>
> You drive a dump truck for a reason, and that's because it hauls dirt.
> You drive a FWD car for a reason and that's because it's cheap.

I drive a FWD car because of the packaging arrangements, not the cost.
>
> There is nothing wrong with those reasons.
> Just stop lying to yourself, and to us.
>
> Cheap is not a crime.

So why make a big deal out of it?
>
> What's a crime is when you say you drive a FWD car for its handling, which
> is exactly like saying you drive a dump truck for its handling.

Dump trucks, laden, have incredible slip angles.

When you talk about handling, you should be referring to slip angles.
>
> The only way you can support that argument is with bro science.

No such an animal as bro science. That is your creation to explain
things you don't understand.
>
>>> The moment people start throwing "bro science" at me, I know they're just
>>> flailing for lack of any reasonable logic. Happens every time when people
>>> believe in Marketing Bull****.
>>>
>> <nonsense anecdote snipped>
>
> I've been discussing FWD for decades, where there are no new arguments from
> those who bought FWD because it's cheap and then they try to convince the
> world that they bought it for its handling.
>
> The only way to back up those marketing claims is with bro science.

When you talk about handling with nary a mention of slip angles, it's
you who is relying on bro science.
>
>> The reason I mentioned 1978-1979 is it's an extreme example of your repeatedly claimed 1%
>> being wrong. The real percentage is - including rain - might average close to 10% of the
>> time I'm driving in conditions where FWD is advantageous.
>
> We can resolve that argument easily with two methods, both of which work in
> and of themselves.
>
> The first is that to take your 90% at face value, which is that you have
> lousy handling for 90% of the time to have good handling for 10% of the
> time when you can't even drive all that fast anyway, so handling can be
> solved with simply slowing down.

You need to have a good long talk with a few rally drivers. Get yourself
an education about things you seem not to understand.
>
> However, the second is more technically interesting.
>
> How do you propose to support your supposition that FWD handles better in
> the rain than RWD does?

Slip angles and torque.
>
>> The most dangerous times of my driving. Without 300 pounds of sand in my trunk.
>> Whereas RWD provides NO handling advantage at ANY time for me.
>> I'm not a car racer.
>
> You're using bro science here, since all you have to do is "slow down" in
> rainy conditions, and if you really drive in *deep snow*, then chains
> and/or weight works fine for the rare occasions that *deep snow* is still
> on the road (rare being single digit percentages).

Escapism on your part.

<snipped>

> Here's how it starts.
> 1. Bean counter comes up with great idea to increase profits $1000/car.
> 2. Marketing ponders how to "spin" it so the populace will buy it.
> 3. Marketing pushes chronic understeer & marginal traction in deep snow.

You haven't driven too many modern FWD cars, have you? You prove that by
your use of the term *chronic understeer* when quite a lot of RWD cars
have chronic *oversteer*. I have seen FE RWD cars with chronic
understeer. It's all to do with slip angles and GofG. Ask yourself why
the best handling cars are *mid engined*.

FWIW, the original mini did not have chronic understeer and I could bat
my 850 around hairpins leaving my friend with his RWD 327 GM POS
swinging sideways all over the road behind me. He had the wherewithall
on the straightaways, the V8 engine saw to that, but on the hairpins the
mini was king. Power into the hairpins whether facing downhill or uphill
and let the car pull itself around the corners in a way the RWD POS
could never do.
>
> Voila!
>
> A myth is born!
>
You're certainly trying to create one.

--

Xeno

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 01:13:40 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood > wrote:

>Vic Smith wrote:
>
>> <snipped some nonsense about Hummers and dump trucks>
>
>It wasn't nonsense.
>
>Saying you drive a FWD for its "handling" is like saying you drive a dump
>truck for its handling.
>
Snow and rain handling. FWD is better. Not snowing or raining?
Doesn't matter to me, I'm not racing.

>You drive a dump truck for a reason, and that's because it hauls dirt.
>You drive a FWD car for a reason and that's because it's cheap.
>

I don't know why you keep saying cheap, but it doesn't make logical sense
since most cars are FWD. If you mean all FWD cars are cheap, you're wrong.

>There is nothing wrong with those reasons.
>Just stop lying to yourself, and to us.
>
>Cheap is not a crime.
>
>What's a crime is when you say you drive a FWD car for its handling, which
>is exactly like saying you drive a dump truck for its handling.
>
Rain and snow handling, FWD is better. You're bringing up arguments which were settled
decades ago.

>The only way you can support that argument is with bro science.
>
>>>The moment people start throwing "bro science" at me, I know they're just
>>>flailing for lack of any reasonable logic. Happens every time when people
>>>believe in Marketing Bull****.
>>>
>> <nonsense anecdote snipped>
>
>I've been discussing FWD for decades, where there are no new arguments from
>those who bought FWD because it's cheap and then they try to convince the
>world that they bought it for its handling.
>
Snow and rain handling FWD is better. Unless you put 3-400 pounds of sandbags in the
trunk.

>The only way to back up those marketing claims is with bro science.
>

I haven't seen FWD "marketed" in decades.

>> The reason I mentioned 1978-1979 is it's an extreme example of your repeatedly claimed 1%
>> being wrong. The real percentage is - including rain - might average close to 10% of the
>> time I'm driving in conditions where FWD is advantageous.
>
>We can resolve that argument easily with two methods, both of which work in
>and of themselves.
>
>The first is that to take your 90% at face value, which is that you have
>lousy handling for 90% of the time to have good handling for 10% of the
>time when you can't even drive all that fast anyway, so handling can be
>solved with simply slowing down.
>

No. I have "better' handling 10% of the time and 90% handling is a non-issue.

>However, the second is more technically interesting.
>
>How do you propose to support your supposition that FWD handles better in
>the rain than RWD does?

Rain often causes slickness. FWD handles slickness better. All of my FWD drive cars have
handled better than my RWD. I just never lose traction with FWD.
>
>> The most dangerous times of my driving. Without 300 pounds of sand in my trunk.
>> Whereas RWD provides NO handling advantage at ANY time for me.
>> I'm not a car racer.
>
>You're using bro science here, since all you have to do is "slow down" in
>rainy conditions, and if you really drive in *deep snow*, then chains
>and/or weight works fine for the rare occasions that *deep snow* is still
>on the road (rare being single digit percentages).
>

I don't need to use chains or weights since I quit driving RWD cars.


>> Again, you're not thinking logically. Your trips to Tahoe don't equate to me living my
>> driving life where it snows 4 months of the year.
>
>I agree that a planned trip to Tahoe is nothing like living in the snow
>belt, where I rode a motorcycle for heaven's sake, in the snow belt, which
>means I learned all too well how to drive in the *track* of the car in
>front of me, when the snow was a few inches thick.
>
>However, this *bro science* of FWD handling better is what is the crime
>becuase the only way the bro science works is that if whatever claim you
>make for FWD getting to work doesn't work for RWD.
>
Why do you misstate what I said about handling. I never said FWD is better handling.
I said FWD is better in the rain and snow.

>If you're saying *nobody* can get to work in your area if they're in RWD,
>or that everyone in RWD is getting into accidents in the rain while the FWD
>cars are NOT getting into accidents ... then we can talk logic.
>
Again, you're saying I said something I never said. Not logical.

>But your bro science is super selective and just doesn't hold logic.
>
>
>> You must be a car racer. I don't have worse handling with FWD.
>> Better handling in fact.
>
>You do?
>You have *better* handling with FWD than RWD?
>
>Pray tell. How?
>

About 10% of the time I'm driving I don't slip and slide in the rain and snow as I did when
driving RWD. The other 90% of the time handling is a non-issue.

>> You'd be easier to get along with if you didn't assume people are spouting "bro science"
>> and lying to themselves.
>
>I've been listinging to FWD discussions for over 30 years and counting.
>They never change.
>
>Here's how it starts.
>1. Bean counter comes up with great idea to increase profits $1000/car.
>2. Marketing ponders how to "spin" it so the populace will buy it.
>3. Marketing pushes chronic understeer & marginal traction in deep snow.
>
>Voila!
>
>A myth is born!

That FWD has better handling under slick conditions was settled about 30 years ago.
You might as well just face facts.
BTW, I drove RWD for decades. It's nice not having to put 300 pounds of sandbags
in my trunk when it's snowy season. But it was no big deal, and I liked RWD for
maintenance reasons.

On 11/7/2017 6:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> You drive a dump truck for a reason, and that's because it hauls dirt.
> You drive a FWD car for a reason and that's because it's cheap.

The first FWD cat I had was an Audi 100 that was renamed to the A6 in
1995. Go buy an A6 and get back to me on cheap. I guess the FWD variant
is cheaper than the Quattro AWD.

On 11/7/2017 8:29 PM, Xeno wrote:
> FWIW, the original mini did not have chronic understeer and I could bat
> my 850 around hairpins leaving my friend with his RWD 327 GM POS
> swinging sideways all over the road behind me. He had the wherewithall
> on the straightaways, the V8 engine saw to that, but on the hairpins the
> mini was king. Power into the hairpins whether facing downhill or uphill
> and let the car pull itself around the corners in a way the RWD POS
> could never do.

I remember the original Minis running at Lime Rock. A Corvette could run
away on the straight but somehow after the twisty stuff the Mini would
be stuck to its bumper again.

That's not a fair test because the 'Vettes handled for **** anyway
speaking of understeer, They did love straight lines.