JohnBoyToo

I can translate for you....

"I work for BMW, I set up the test to favor BMW, and I am trying to act liked I didn't"


Just like with Myth Busters, and Junk Science like Global warming, er ah, climate change.... you can make statistics prove your point!

CrustyNoodle

springsteen

So true what can be done with statistics and data. But JTB, are the data you embrace 'pure' when rejecting the mountains of scientific evidence on behalf of climate change? In order to judge the evidence, we can't reach our conclusions in advance. Otherwise, we're never given a seat on the jury to judge the case. I've had people tell me, with a straight face, that no matter how much scientific evidence is provided in support of evolution, they will never change their minds. Apart from the fact they will never be seated on the jury to judge the case, their acknowledgment is the equivalent of wearing a tattoo on the forehead that says "I am so close minded I am beyond reach by any evidence that undermines the beliefs I currently hold, no matter how false they may be shown to be in the end."

CrustyNoodle

+1

JohnBoyToo

off subject, and sorry to hijack... but I like a good discussion

you are exactly correct in that one side is not given a place at the table.
Just like many things going on now, bluster and force is used to push a positions, not civil discourse and scientific methods...

the other side of your valid question is...
is the data SO pure that proves GW is true?

IMHO, the scientific method was not followed in the cost of GW to us...
the boiled down opinion of mine is that it's simple cycles,
just like it gets hot during the day and cools off at night,
it get's warm in the summer and cools off in the fall...
taken to the mega-trend approach the planet goes through warmer and cooler cycles... probably linked to sum activity like being proposed...

In fact, just before this man caused disaster called GW/CC, the little ice age created havoc the world over... in fact, the warming period could be one of the biggest reasons that humans have flourished in that it makes for a longer growing season and we can produce more food to feed us...

SO, just like in this video, the skewed presentation of ONE side of the argument at the expense of the other doesn't 'prove' the position

I am not so arrogant that I 'believe' that human activity changed the cosmos ... YRMV

maybe we should save the evolution discussion for another thread

springsteen

I guess what it comes down to, is how do we know anything? Is it all in our gut? Or do our minds have something to say? We could, for example, debate which car is faster 0-60 mpg, the Q5 or the X3. The owners of each could assert 'their' claims and it would never get us any closer to what is really true. That's where evidence, tested by standards agreed to by all observers, can settle the dispute. Anyone can always argue that some of the evidence is biased, etc. And that works both ways. Does that leave us each to see things as we prefer to see them, no matter how skewed or false our gaze may be? Is there no way for us to conclude, based on the best evidence modern science can provide, based on universal standards of what constitutes legitimate science, whether the evidence points in this or that direction? Again, using the jury metaphor, if your mind is shut prior to knowing what the data tell us, all you can claim is your mind is shut. And the evolution debate works the same way--no need to save it for later. The first question each of us has to answer, in a truthful and intellectually honest way, is whether we'll be persuaded by the best evidence available. I'm only commenting here because of the off-handed attempt to get away with a conclusion that doesn't have the preponderance of evidence on its side. It was a political statement masked as a scientific answer. Climate change/global warming is not something entirely settled. Not surprisingly, based on how science works, the current weight of evidence is on the side of those who see a relationship between human activity and climate effects. And the evidence continues to mount. It may not be as compelling, at the moment, as the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer. But it is moving in that direction. But let's recognize there are still business elements arguing that the scientific evidence doesn't 'prove' the link between smoking and cancer. But those folks, my friends, will never again be seated on the jury.

Gear Junky

For quattro to fail in the rollers test would the electronic like (ABS, ESP, etc) not have had to be disabled because my understanding of it is that once a wheel begins to slip the electronics brake said wheel/s at which point the power is transferred else where. Though I must admit that I have used quattro when the weather was bad and snow was thick on the ground and I did get stuck, no fault of the quattro system because the car bellied out and all four (summer tyres) sat there spinning away merrily.

Quattro is only as good as the noob using it and the type of tyres in use at the time, same is probably true for x-drive or any other awd system.

P.S.
I did go and check out the new X3 and I must say there is lots to like about it, it drives remarkably well and is a bit quieter than the Q5. Though I'm not a fan of either the interior or exterior styling.

gat821

We have to remember the difference between an open differential in the front and rear and the Torsen in the center. With an open diff, torque wants to go to the side with the least resistance. That's why if the right tire loses traction, torque goes there and the wheel starts spinning. EDL brakes that wheel and since the other side now has less traction/resistance since its not being braked, torque goes there and the car moves forward.

The Torsen acts the opposite way - torque goes to the side with more traction. It sends a multiple of the torque on the low resistance side to the side with more. What it does need though is load. So if say the front completely loses traction like on those rollers, 0 * that multiple is still 0. If an EDL like system were to brake the front, then that front axle is the side with more traction/resistance, and to which the Torsen is sending the torque, when it needs to send the torque to the back.

Apparently, the system cannot modulate brake pressure such that there is only a small resistance on the front with the rollers, such that there's more torque sent to the back to move the car. As mentioned in an earlier post, that's where your foot comes in.

BirdmanQ5

I thought I might share a story, I feel it fits nicely in this thread.

Years ago, my mom used to buy nothing but BMWs, mostly 3 series and 5 series with X drive for the cottage. She even bought an X5 when they first came out. We have a cottage north of Toronto, and cottage roads can get a little bit iffy in the winter. There wasn't a weekend she drove those roads in her BMW where she wouldn't crash the damn thing in the ditch on the hill up to our driveway, prompting my father and I to roll up in the Yukon Denali and haul her *** out of there with slings. Eventually, after the X5, the 335xi, and the TL, she bought an 07 A4. Feeling cocky, she took it to the cottage wearing all season tires. We couldn't believe how well the car gripped the road, and her days of crashing into the ditch were no more. I learned to drive on that car, so you can be surprised why I crashed my Matrix 5 times in the winter, but it with that first switch to Audi that we realized what a great system Quattro really is.

RobMate

I'm definitely a quattro noob. so step on the brakes when/if the tires start spinning in snow lets say then the gas?