On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:41:47 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 26 June 2017 14:24:43 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:03:29 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Saturday, 10 June 2017 18:19:02 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2017 10:26:18 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 20:07:17 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 08 May 2017 11:14:11 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:



So I don't have to pay the manufacturer a fortune to open the cover.

If the company put a decent size battery in there in the first place you wouldn't need to replace it.

Size is irrelevant, batteries have a limited lifespan.
What use is a 1 mAh battery even if it lasts you a decade.

My point is it doesn't matter if the battery lasts long enough between charges, it will still chemically die after 4 years.

Battery life is mostly determined by charge cycles or in extreme cases how it is treated. Most don't keep their computers 4 years anyway.

And the time limit of 4 years. You can't buy a rechargeable, hardly ever use it, then expect it to work 10 years later.

So no point in buying it then if it only last 4 years is that what your saying ?

I'm saying if you want to use your phone after 4 years, it should be openable, by you. Anyone manufacturing a phone you can't open yourself is artificially limiting it's life to 4 years, which is against the consumer goods act.

Duds occur no matter what.

when you find a dub reject it don't try hiding it inside a phone or laptop.

Probably not possible to detect all forms of dudness.

The more you test for .....

The more it costs.

yes, it's cost samsung quite a bit.
Maybe the saving on testing or spending money on a betteryh battery didnlt pay off this time, better luck next time perhaps.

It probably saved them a fortune actually.

Phones and laptops don't wear out, they become obsolete, at the same rate.

What do you mean by the same rate ?

"the same rate" is a common enough English phrase.

But it doesnt apply equally to all computers.
Look at a 4 year old apple laptop and a 4 year old lenvenoe and check the prices.

Prices are irrelevant, that's just what people are prepared to pay. And people who buy Apple are morons with more money than sense.

yeah sure maybe better designed is luck in your world.

I hardly think major manufacturers are using badly designed batteries.

Almost right. "I hardly think"

Perhaps you could explain why samsung had such problems then.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/galax...-what-happened

Batteries made by Samsung's SDI group were too small at one corner, causing negative electrodes to be bent and increase the likelihood of short circuiting. Separately, batteries from third party provider Amperex Technology Ltd were incorrectly welded. Points left on the batteries were able to penetrate protective insulation.

Why do you expect a 100% success rate in everything?

I don't.

Then why get upset about the Samsung phones? I have one, 3 friends have one, none of the 4 have ever exploded.

How many of apples iphone7s have exploded or have had bad batteries ?

Irrelevant, as you just claimed 100% is ok.

--
Which is it, is man one of god's blunders or is god one of man's? -- Friedrich Nietzsche

On Monday, 26 June 2017 17:33:42 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:41:47 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:



And the time limit of 4 years. You can't buy a rechargeable, hardly ever use it, then expect it to work 10 years later.

So no point in buying it then if it only last 4 years is that what your saying ?

I'm saying if you want to use your phone after 4 years, it should be openable, by you.

if you want a phione to last longer than 4 years then get one that can be opened don;t buy one that can't that's the key.
if no one brought phones that couldn't be opened up then they would be made would they.

Anyone manufacturing a phone you can't open yourself is artificially limiting it's life to 4 years, which is against the consumer goods act.

It's not against the consumer goods act, if it were then they'd be banned wouldn't they.



Duds occur no matter what.

when you find a dub reject it don't try hiding it inside a phone or laptop.

Probably not possible to detect all forms of dudness.

The more you test for .....

The more it costs.

yes, it's cost samsung quite a bit.
Maybe the saving on testing or spending money on a betteryh battery didnlt pay off this time, better luck next time perhaps.

It probably saved them a fortune actually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714461

The recall is thought to have cost $5.3bn (£4.3bn) and was hugely damaging for the South Korean firm's reputation.


Then they'll be repeating this saving on the samsun 8 then is that what you're saying, we'll wait and see if they start expolding.

But other than terrosists I don't really see a market for exploding phones do you ?


Phones and laptops don't wear out, they become obsolete, at the same rate.

What do you mean by the same rate ?

"the same rate" is a common enough English phrase.

But it doesnt apply equally to all computers.
Look at a 4 year old apple laptop and a 4 year old lenvenoe and check the prices.

Prices are irrelevant,

Prices dicated what is wanted most, this is why gold is more expensive than dog ****.

that's just what people are prepared to pay.

exactly why are people prepared to pay more for some items than others.


And people who buy Apple are morons with more money than sense.

And people that buy exploding phones.......


yeah sure maybe better designed is luck in your world.

I hardly think major manufacturers are using badly designed batteries.

Almost right. "I hardly think"

Perhaps you could explain why samsung had such problems then.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/galax...-what-happened

Batteries made by Samsung's SDI group were too small at one corner, causing negative electrodes to be bent and increase the likelihood of short circuiting. Separately, batteries from third party provider Amperex Technology Ltd were incorrectly welded. Points left on the batteries were able to penetrate protective insulation.

Why do you expect a 100% success rate in everything?

I don't.

Then why get upset about the Samsung phones? I have one, 3 friends have one, none of the 4 have ever exploded.

There's lots of tower blocks that haven't caught fire either.



How many of apples iphone7s have exploded or have had bad batteries ?

Irrelevant, as you just claimed 100% is ok.

I never claimed anything.

But if someone offered to pay you $10,000 for an exploding phone adn yuo werent; allowed to modify the phone in any way which phone would you have brought an iphone or a samsung phone or a fisher price classic chatter ?

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 June 2017 17:33:42 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:41:47 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:



And the time limit of 4 years. You can't buy a rechargeable, hardly
ever use it, then expect it to work 10 years later.

So no point in buying it then if it only last 4 years is that what your
saying ?

I'm saying if you want to use your phone after 4 years, it should be
openable, by you.

if you want a phione to last longer than 4 years then get one that can be
opened don;t buy one that can't that's the key. if no one brought phones
that couldn't be opened up then they would be made would they.

The Microsoft Surfaces can't be opened without destroying them and they
sell anyway, presumably because most arent aware that they arent repairable.

Anyone manufacturing a phone you can't open yourself is artificially
limiting it's life to 4 years, which is against the consumer goods act.

It's not against the consumer goods act, if it
were then they'd be banned wouldn't they.

Duds occur no matter what.

when you find a dub reject it don't try hiding it inside a phone
or laptop.

Probably not possible to detect all forms of dudness.

The more you test for .....

The more it costs.

yes, it's cost samsung quite a bit.
Maybe the saving on testing or spending money on a betteryh
battery didnlt pay off this time, better luck next time perhaps.

It probably saved them a fortune actually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714461

The recall is thought to have cost $5.3bn (£4.3bn) and was
hugely damaging for the South Korean firm's reputation.

It remains to be seen what effect it has on sales.

Then they'll be repeating this saving on the samsun 8 then is that
what you're saying, we'll wait and see if they start expolding.

But other than terrosists I don't really see a market for exploding phones
do you ?


Phones and laptops don't wear out, they become obsolete, at the
same rate.

What do you mean by the same rate ?

"the same rate" is a common enough English phrase.

But it doesnt apply equally to all computers.
Look at a 4 year old apple laptop and a 4 year old lenvenoe and check
the prices.

Prices are irrelevant,

Prices dicated what is wanted most, this is why gold is more expensive
than dog ****.

that's just what people are prepared to pay.

exactly why are people prepared to pay more for some items than others.


And people who buy Apple are morons with more money than sense.

And people that buy exploding phones.......


yeah sure maybe better designed is luck in your world.

I hardly think major manufacturers are using badly designed
batteries.

Almost right. "I hardly think"

Perhaps you could explain why samsung had such problems then.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/galax...-what-happened

Batteries made by Samsung's SDI group were too small at one corner,
causing negative electrodes to be bent and increase the likelihood
of short circuiting. Separately, batteries from third party provider
Amperex Technology Ltd were incorrectly welded. Points left on the
batteries were able to penetrate protective insulation.

Why do you expect a 100% success rate in everything?

I don't.

Then why get upset about the Samsung phones? I have one, 3 friends have
one, none of the 4 have ever exploded.

There's lots of tower blocks that haven't caught fire either.



How many of apples iphone7s have exploded or have had bad batteries ?

Irrelevant, as you just claimed 100% is ok.

I never claimed anything.

But if someone offered to pay you $10,000 for an exploding phone adn yuo
werent; allowed to modify the phone in any way which phone would you have
brought an iphone or a samsung phone or a fisher price classic chatter ?

On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 21:18:50 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 June 2017 17:33:42 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:41:47 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:



And the time limit of 4 years. You can't buy a rechargeable, hardly
ever use it, then expect it to work 10 years later.

So no point in buying it then if it only last 4 years is that what your
saying ?

I'm saying if you want to use your phone after 4 years, it should be
openable, by you.

if you want a phione to last longer than 4 years then get one that can be
opened don;t buy one that can't that's the key. if no one brought phones
that couldn't be opened up then they would be made would they.

The Microsoft Surfaces can't be opened without destroying them and they
sell anyway, presumably because most arent aware that they arent repairable.

Most aren;t intrested in getting them repaired they either work or they don't when they stop working you replace them. They are as disposable as shoes and underwear which peolpe also used to repair.



Anyone manufacturing a phone you can't open yourself is artificially
limiting it's life to 4 years, which is against the consumer goods act..

It's not against the consumer goods act, if it
were then they'd be banned wouldn't they.



yes, it's cost samsung quite a bit.
Maybe the saving on testing or spending money on a betteryh
battery didnlt pay off this time, better luck next time perhaps.

It probably saved them a fortune actually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714461

The recall is thought to have cost $5.3bn (£4.3bn) and was
hugely damaging for the South Korean firm's reputation.

It remains to be seen what effect it has on sales.

It had an efect on sales, peole didnlt buy them partly because samsung withdrew them from sale so they could be brought, samsung lost money because they couldnlt sell phones that were potentailly faulty and dangerous.



Then they'll be repeating this saving on the samsun 8 then is that
what you're saying, we'll wait and see if they start expolding.

But other than terrosists I don't really see a market for exploding phones
do you ?




Prices are irrelevant,

Prices dicated what is wanted most, this is why gold is more expensive
than dog ****.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 21:18:50 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 June 2017 17:33:42 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:41:47 +0100, whisky-dave

wrote:



And the time limit of 4 years. You can't buy a rechargeable,
hardly
ever use it, then expect it to work 10 years later.

So no point in buying it then if it only last 4 years is that what
your
saying ?

I'm saying if you want to use your phone after 4 years, it should be
openable, by you.

if you want a phione to last longer than 4 years then get one that can
be
opened don;t buy one that can't that's the key. if no one brought
phones
that couldn't be opened up then they would be made would they.

The Microsoft Surfaces can't be opened without destroying them and they
sell anyway, presumably because most arent aware that they arent
repairable.

Most aren;t intrested in getting them repaired they either work or
they don't when they stop working you replace them. They are as
disposable as shoes and underwear which peolpe also used to repair.

I'm not convinced about that with cracked screens, particularly
with the expensive high end smartphones. They may not give
it much thought when buying the phone, but they do certainly
consider it after they drop it and crack the screen. Sure, lifeproof
cases do help with that but they have their own downsides.

Anyone manufacturing a phone you can't open yourself is artificially
limiting it's life to 4 years, which is against the consumer goods
act.

It's not against the consumer goods act, if it
were then they'd be banned wouldn't they.



yes, it's cost samsung quite a bit.
Maybe the saving on testing or spending money on a betteryh
battery didnlt pay off this time, better luck next time perhaps.

It probably saved them a fortune actually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714461

The recall is thought to have cost $5.3bn (£4.3bn) and was
hugely damaging for the South Korean firm's reputation.

It remains to be seen what effect it has on sales.

It had an efect on sales, peole didnlt buy them

I meant with the new S8s, not the Note.

partly because samsung withdrew them from sale so they
could be brought, samsung lost money because they couldnlt
sell phones that were potentailly faulty and dangerous.

Then they'll be repeating this saving on the samsun 8 then is that
what you're saying, we'll wait and see if they start expolding.

But other than terrosists I don't really see a market for exploding
phones
do you ?




Prices are irrelevant,

Prices dicated what is wanted most, this is why gold is more expensive
than dog ****.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:51:24 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 26 June 2017 17:33:42 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:41:47 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:



And the time limit of 4 years. You can't buy a rechargeable, hardly ever use it, then expect it to work 10 years later.

So no point in buying it then if it only last 4 years is that what your saying ?

I'm saying if you want to use your phone after 4 years, it should be openable, by you.

if you want a phione to last longer than 4 years then get one that can be opened don;t buy one that can't that's the key.
if no one brought phones that couldn't be opened up then they would be made would they.

But people don't know they can't be opened until they need to open them. Why would someone expect a phone to be sealed?

Anyone manufacturing a phone you can't open yourself is artificially limiting it's life to 4 years, which is against the consumer goods act..

It's not against the consumer goods act, if it were then they'd be banned wouldn't they.

You have too much faith in the law. It's only a civil offence, people have to take them to court. Just like you don't get the police round your door when you download Metallica. They have to sue you for damages.

Duds occur no matter what.

when you find a dub reject it don't try hiding it inside a phone or laptop.

Probably not possible to detect all forms of dudness.

The more you test for .....

The more it costs.

yes, it's cost samsung quite a bit.
Maybe the saving on testing or spending money on a betteryh battery didnlt pay off this time, better luck next time perhaps.

It probably saved them a fortune actually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714461

The recall is thought to have cost $5.3bn (£4.3bn) and was hugely damaging for the South Korean firm's reputation.

They don't need to recall all of them. Probably some bull**** EU health and softy law.

Then they'll be repeating this saving on the samsun 8 then is that what you're saying, we'll wait and see if they start expolding.

But other than terrosists I don't really see a market for exploding phones do you ?

The chances of the exploding happening were quite low. They took the risk, they lost.

Phones and laptops don't wear out, they become obsolete, at the same rate.

What do you mean by the same rate ?

"the same rate" is a common enough English phrase.

But it doesnt apply equally to all computers.
Look at a 4 year old apple laptop and a 4 year old lenvenoe and check the prices.

Prices are irrelevant,

Prices dicated what is wanted most, this is why gold is more expensive than dog ****.

that's just what people are prepared to pay.

exactly why are people prepared to pay more for some items than others..

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. **** cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair, expensive to buy.

And people who buy Apple are morons with more money than sense.

And people that buy exploding phones.......

Mine hasn't. My neighbour's hasn't. My friend's hasn't.

yeah sure maybe better designed is luck in your world.

I hardly think major manufacturers are using badly designed batteries.

Almost right. "I hardly think"

Perhaps you could explain why samsung had such problems then.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/galax...-what-happened

Batteries made by Samsung's SDI group were too small at one corner, causing negative electrodes to be bent and increase the likelihood of short circuiting. Separately, batteries from third party provider Amperex Technology Ltd were incorrectly welded. Points left on the batteries were able to penetrate protective insulation.

Why do you expect a 100% success rate in everything?

I don't.

Then why get upset about the Samsung phones? I have one, 3 friends have one, none of the 4 have ever exploded.

There's lots of tower blocks that haven't caught fire either.

My point exactly. Tower blocks aren't dangerous. Chances are the one you live in will be fine.

How many of apples iphone7s have exploded or have had bad batteries ?

Irrelevant, as you just claimed 100% is ok.

I never claimed anything.

But if someone offered to pay you $10,000 for an exploding phone adn yuo werent; allowed to modify the phone in any way which phone would you have brought an iphone or a samsung phone or a fisher price classic chatter ?

I'd buy the Samsung and change the battery.

--
I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. **** cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair, expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.


NT

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. **** cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair, expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car shows to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear wheel drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The parts are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own them).

--
If you wipe your ass with your bare hand but consider bacon to be unclean, you may be a Muslim.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:51:24 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 26 June 2017 17:33:42 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:41:47 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:



And the time limit of 4 years. You can't buy a rechargeable, hardly
ever use it, then expect it to work 10 years later.

So no point in buying it then if it only last 4 years is that what
your saying ?

I'm saying if you want to use your phone after 4 years, it should be
openable, by you.

if you want a phione to last longer than 4 years then get one that can be
opened don;t buy one that can't that's the key.
if no one brought phones that couldn't be opened up then they would be
made would they.

But people don't know they can't be opened until they need to open them.

They do if they have enough of a clue to do even the
most basic research before actually buying the phone.

Why would someone expect a phone to be sealed?

Very few of them are.

Anyone manufacturing a phone you can't open yourself is artificially
limiting it's life to 4 years, which is against the consumer goods act.

It's not against the consumer goods act, if it were then they'd be
banned wouldn't they.

You have too much faith in the law. It's only a civil offence,

And yet stuff that is illegal is banned anyway.

people have to take them to court.

Nope, just make a complaint the regulatory authoritys
and have them **** the operation over.

Just like you don't get the police round your door when you download
Metallica.

Nothing like in fact.

They have to sue you for damages.

That isnt the way it works with consumer law.

Duds occur no matter what.

when you find a dub reject it don't try hiding it inside a phone
or laptop.

Probably not possible to detect all forms of dudness.

The more you test for .....

The more it costs.

yes, it's cost samsung quite a bit.
Maybe the saving on testing or spending money on a betteryh battery
didnlt pay off this time, better luck next time perhaps.

It probably saved them a fortune actually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714461

The recall is thought to have cost $5.3bn (£4.3bn) and was hugely
damaging for the South Korean firm's reputation.

They don't need to recall all of them.

They did to stop the massive publicity
when yet another one went up in flames.

Probably some bull**** EU health and softy law.

Nope, it was a world wide recall.

Then they'll be repeating this saving on the samsun 8 then is that what
you're saying, we'll wait and see if they start expolding.

But other than terrosists I don't really see a market for exploding
phones do you ?

The chances of the exploding happening were quite low. They took the
risk, they lost.

Consumer law doesn't work like that.

Phones and laptops don't wear out, they become obsolete, at the
same rate.

What do you mean by the same rate ?

"the same rate" is a common enough English phrase.

But it doesnt apply equally to all computers.
Look at a 4 year old apple laptop and a 4 year old lenvenoe and check
the prices.

Prices are irrelevant,

Prices dicated what is wanted most, this is why gold is more expensive
than dog ****.

that's just what people are prepared to pay.

exactly why are people prepared to pay more for some items than others.

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. **** cars,
stupid designs,

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never had a
****ing clue.

terrible handling, expensive to repair, expensive to buy.

Not everyone is an unemployable ****wit that not only
couldn't manage to work out what qualifications would
get it a job where it wanted to 'live', and ended up getting
its fingers bitten stuffing catalogues thru letterboxes for
a pittance.

And people who buy Apple are morons with more money than sense.

And people that buy exploding phones.......

Mine hasn't. My neighbour's hasn't. My friend's hasn't.

yeah sure maybe better designed is luck in your world.

I hardly think major manufacturers are using badly designed
batteries.

Almost right. "I hardly think"

Perhaps you could explain why samsung had such problems then.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/galax...-what-happened

Batteries made by Samsung's SDI group were too small at one corner,
causing negative electrodes to be bent and increase the likelihood
of short circuiting. Separately, batteries from third party
provider Amperex Technology Ltd were incorrectly welded. Points
left on the batteries were able to penetrate protective insulation.

Why do you expect a 100% success rate in everything?

I don't.

Then why get upset about the Samsung phones? I have one, 3 friends have
one, none of the 4 have ever exploded.

There's lots of tower blocks that haven't caught fire either.

My point exactly. Tower blocks aren't dangerous. Chances are the one you
live in will be fine.

But when the **** does hit the fan, much harder to get out of safely.

How many of apples iphone7s have exploded or have had bad batteries ?

Irrelevant, as you just claimed 100% is ok.

I never claimed anything.

But if someone offered to pay you $10,000 for an exploding phone adn yuo
werent; allowed to modify the phone in any way which phone would you have
brought an iphone or a samsung phone or a fisher price classic chatter ?

I'd buy the Samsung and change the battery.

You can't with the latest ones and havent been able to for a while now.

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. **** cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair, expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car shows to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear wheel drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The parts are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one you'd have a more balanced view.


NT

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 18:27:35 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


The Microsoft Surfaces can't be opened without destroying them and they
sell anyway, presumably because most arent aware that they arent
repairable.

Most aren;t intrested in getting them repaired they either work or
they don't when they stop working you replace them. They are as
disposable as shoes and underwear which peolpe also used to repair.

I'm not convinced about that with cracked screens, particularly
with the expensive high end smartphones.

you've not seen people use smartphones with cracked screens ?

They may not give
it much thought when buying the phone, but they do certainly
consider it after they drop it and crack the screen.

and lots of people don't bother getting it repaired Sure some will but that will depend on price, a friend of mine when he first got an iphone5 cracked teh screen within 6 months kept it a year in that condition, when one of his friends got a job repairing phones he's mate did it for free otherwise he wouldnlt have bothered.

, lifeproof
cases do help with that but they have their own downsides.

Yep,


yes, it's cost samsung quite a bit.
Maybe the saving on testing or spending money on a betteryh
battery didnlt pay off this time, better luck next time perhaps.

It probably saved them a fortune actually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714461

The recall is thought to have cost $5.3bn (£4.3bn) and was
hugely damaging for the South Korean firm's reputation.

It remains to be seen what effect it has on sales.

It had an efect on sales, people didn't buy them

I meant with the new S8s, not the Note.

We'll never know perhaps they all waited and didn;t ungrade their existing phone until the 8 came out but maybe they brought a differtn smartphone.
samsugn arenlt know for brand loyalty like Apple are rightly or wrongly it's a fact. Have you ever heard of samsung fanbois like you here of Apple fanbois ?

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:51:24 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 26 June 2017 17:33:42 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:41:47 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

I'm saying if you want to use your phone after 4 years, it should be openable, by you.

if you want a phone to last longer than 4 years then get one that can be opened don;t buy one that can't that's the key.
if no one brought phones that couldn't be opened up then they would be made would they.

But people don't know they can't be opened until they need to open them.

People arenl;t interested in opening their phone those days are long gone.

Why would someone expect a phone to be sealed?

Because people know they are, people rarely get TVs repaired , look for TV repair men in the local paper and that might give you a clue.
Few peole get their shoes rehealed either.
Few get their shoes polished either. When was the last time yuo saw someone get their trainsers resouled or cleaned.



Anyone manufacturing a phone you can't open yourself is artificially limiting it's life to 4 years, which is against the consumer goods act.

It's not against the consumer goods act, if it were then they'd be banned wouldn't they.

You have too much faith in the law.

it's NOT a law.

It's only a civil offence, people have to take them to court.

So when have Apple been taken to court for sealing their phones. ?


Just like you don't get the police round your door when you download Metallica. They have to sue you for damages.

Are you sure it's the police and not the local mental health support.


Anyway that's a totally differnt law.




yes, it's cost samsung quite a bit.
Maybe the saving on testing or spending money on a betteryh battery didnlt pay off this time, better luck next time perhaps.

It probably saved them a fortune actually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714461

The recall is thought to have cost $5.3bn (£4.3bn) and was hugely damaging for the South Korean firm's reputation.

They don't need to recall all of them. Probably some bull**** EU health and softy law.

Only an idiot would buy a phone that is being recalled for safety isssues.
Why pay full price for a faulty product.


Then they'll be repeating this saving on the samsun 8 then is that what you're saying, we'll wait and see if they start expolding.

But other than terrosists I don't really see a market for exploding phones do you ?

The chances of the exploding happening were quite low. They took the risk, they lost.

samsung lost, yes they did.
They lost a factory too didn't they, well part of one.



I'd buy the Samsung and change the battery.

Why buy a faulty battery spendign yuor own money on it, why not buy a fulling working phone instead of gettign one with a faulty battery in it ?

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

I'd buy the Samsung and change the battery.

--
I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

I think the above two lines sums it up.

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 00:47:32 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. **** cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair, expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car shows to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear wheel drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The parts are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one you'd have a more balanced view.


No he wouldn't he has a problem with balance especailly when wearing shoes and he can't work out the height of the aviary doors he put in, so keeps hitting his head.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

The Microsoft Surfaces can't be opened without destroying them and they
sell anyway, presumably because most arent aware that they arent
repairable.

Most aren;t intrested in getting them repaired they either work or
they don't when they stop working you replace them. They are as
disposable as shoes and underwear which peolpe also used to repair.

I'm not convinced about that with cracked screens,
particularly with the expensive high end smartphones.

you've not seen people use smartphones with cracked screens ?

They clearly arent as disposable as shoes and
underwear which people also used to repair.

They may not give it much thought when buying the phone, but
they do certainly consider it after they drop it and crack the screen.

and lots of people don't bother getting it repaired

They clearly arent as disposable as shoes and
underwear which people also used to repair.

Sure some will but that will depend on price, a friend
of mine when he first got an iphone5 cracked teh screen
within 6 months kept it a year in that condition, when
one of his friends got a job repairing phones he's mate
did it for free otherwise he wouldnlt have bothered.

They clearly arent as disposable as shoes and
underwear which people also used to repair.

yes, it's cost samsung quite a bit.
Maybe the saving on testing or spending money on a betteryh
battery didnlt pay off this time, better luck next time perhaps.

It probably saved them a fortune actually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714461

The recall is thought to have cost $5.3bn (£4.3bn) and was
hugely damaging for the South Korean firm's reputation.

It remains to be seen what effect it has on sales.

It had an efect on sales, people didn't buy them

I meant with the new S8s, not the Note.

We'll never know

Corse we will know how many chose to buy an S8

perhaps they all waited and didn;t ungrade their existing phone
until the 8 came out but maybe they brought a differtn smartphone.

And we'll know how many bought an S8.

samsugn arenlt know for brand loyalty like Apple are rightly or wrongly
it's a fact.

Nothing even remotely like a fact in fact.

Have you ever heard of samsung fanbois like you here of Apple fanbois ?

Yep, and know some personally too. In fact I know more who are with Samsung
than Apple.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 03:45:59 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

Few peole get their shoes rehealed either.

What with the NHS waiting lists...

Few get their shoes polished either. When was the last time yuo saw
someone get their trainsers resouled or cleaned.

Churches are closing too.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 11:56:26 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

The Microsoft Surfaces can't be opened without destroying them and they
sell anyway, presumably because most arent aware that they arent
repairable.

Most aren;t intrested in getting them repaired they either work or
they don't when they stop working you replace them. They are as
disposable as shoes and underwear which peolpe also used to repair.

I'm not convinced about that with cracked screens,
particularly with the expensive high end smartphones.

you've not seen people use smartphones with cracked screens ?

They clearly arent as disposable as shoes and
underwear which people also used to repair.

How many peole expect their undear to last 4+ years ?




They clearly arent as disposable as shoes and
underwear which people also used to repair.

There's a wierd annoying echo in here....



They clearly arent as disposable as shoes and
underwear which people also used to repair.




They clearly arent as disposable as shoes and
underwear which people also used to repair.


I meant with the new S8s, not the Note.

We'll never know

Corse we will know how many chose to buy an S8

but we donlt know how many would have brought and stuck with their version 7 if they didn't have to return it or decided to buy something else instead.

I would say you can't be that dumb, but we all know you are.



samsugn arenlt know for brand loyalty like Apple are rightly or wrongly
it's a fact.

Nothing even remotely like a fact in fact.

It is a fact.


Have you ever heard of samsung fanbois like you here of Apple fanbois ?

Yep, and know some personally too. In fact I know more who are with Samsung
than Apple.

That's more down to the sort of peolpe you know, who can;t buy stuff for themseleves.

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 12:20:36 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 03:45:59 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

Few peole get their shoes rehealed either.

What with the NHS waiting lists...

Few get their shoes polished either. When was the last time yuo saw
someone get their trainsers resouled or cleaned.

Churches are closing too.

Churches get repaired too. Pubs are closing too.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:28:17 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 12:20:36 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 03:45:59 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

Few peole get their shoes rehealed either.

What with the NHS waiting lists...

Few get their shoes polished either. When was the last time yuo saw
someone get their trainsers resouled or cleaned.

Churches are closing too.

Churches get repaired too. Pubs are closing too.

Whoooosh.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. ****
cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair,
expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are
terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car shows
to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear wheel
drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The parts
are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one
you'd have a more balanced view.


Mr Razor Blade is a fool. Pretty well all BMWs have had stability control
for 20 years or more. And traction control. And multi-link rear
suspension. So tail happy went out in the 80s.

Interesting he considers RWD ****e. That must be why all racing cars are
FWD.

--
*Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 13:38:13 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:28:17 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 12:20:36 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 03:45:59 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

Few peole get their shoes rehealed either.

What with the NHS waiting lists...

Few get their shoes polished either. When was the last time yuo saw
someone get their trainsers resouled or cleaned.

Churches are closing too.

Churches get repaired too. Pubs are closing too.

Whoooosh.

Yes it did go over your head didn't it.
Churches get repaired if people thiubnk they are worth repairing, clothes, shoes get mended but only if the owners think they are worth it, which is why few bother with 4+ year old phones.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 June 2017 11:56:26 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

The Microsoft Surfaces can't be opened without destroying them and
they
sell anyway, presumably because most arent aware that they arent
repairable.

Most aren;t intrested in getting them repaired they either work or
they don't when they stop working you replace them. They are as
disposable as shoes and underwear which peolpe also used to repair.

I'm not convinced about that with cracked screens,
particularly with the expensive high end smartphones.

you've not seen people use smartphones with cracked screens ?

They clearly arent as disposable as shoes and
underwear which people also used to repair.

How many peole expect their undear to last 4+ years ?

Irrelevant to whether high end smartphones are actually as
disposable as shoes and underware that people used to repair.

And since this **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on your even sillier ****.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 07:58:45 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 13:38:13 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:28:17 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 12:20:36 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 03:45:59 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

Few peole get their shoes rehealed either.

What with the NHS waiting lists...

Few get their shoes polished either. When was the last time yuo
saw someone get their trainsers resouled or cleaned.

Churches are closing too.

Churches get repaired too. Pubs are closing too.

Whoooosh.

Yes it did go over your head didn't it.
Churches get repaired if people thiubnk they are worth repairing,
clothes, shoes get mended but only if the owners think they are worth
it, which is why few bother with 4+ year old phones.

Oh dear oh dear. Bigger whoosh than I thought.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:51:17 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 00:47:32 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. **** cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair, expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car shows to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear wheel drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The parts are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one you'd have a more balanced view.


No he wouldn't he has a problem with balance especailly when wearing shoes and he can't work out the height of the aviary doors he put in, so keeps hitting his head.

BMWs are anything but balanced, they have the worst handling of all cars.


--
TEACHER: Millie, give me a sentence starting with "I"
MILLIE: I is..
TEACHER: No, Millie ..... Always say, "I am"
MILLIE: All right... "I am the ninth letter of the alphabet"

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:14:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. ****
cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair,
expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are
terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car shows
to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear wheel
drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The parts
are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one
you'd have a more balanced view.

Mr Razor Blade is a fool. Pretty well all BMWs have had stability control
for 20 years or more. And traction control. And multi-link rear
suspension. So tail happy went out in the 80s.

Not according to what I see them do on Top Gear.

Interesting he considers RWD ****e. That must be why all racing cars are
FWD.

Racing cars are not designed for good handling on public roads.

--
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:14:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. ****
cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair,
expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are
terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car shows
to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear wheel
drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The parts
are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one
you'd have a more balanced view.


Mr Razor Blade is a fool. Pretty well all BMWs have had stability control
for 20 years or more. And traction control. And multi-link rear
suspension. So tail happy went out in the 80s.

Interesting he considers RWD ****e. That must be why all racing cars are
FWD.

Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly stunts. FWD is easier to control.

--
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:47:27 +0100, wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. **** cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair, expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car shows to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear wheel drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The parts are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one you'd have a more balanced view.

I'm not stupid enough to buy a car with parts that expensive.

--
If the Internet is a superhighway, then AOL must be a fleet of farm equipment that straddles five lanes and pays no heed to "Keep Right Except to Pass" signs.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12:20:32 +0100, Bob Eager wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 03:45:59 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

Few peole get their shoes rehealed either.

What with the NHS waiting lists...

Few get their shoes polished either. When was the last time yuo saw
someone get their trainsers resouled or cleaned.

Churches are closing too.

All churches should be burned to the ground. Build something useful there instead like houses.

--
Once you've seen one shopping centre, you've seen a mall.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 19:48:08 +0100, Bob Eager wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 07:58:45 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 13:38:13 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:28:17 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 12:20:36 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 03:45:59 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

Few peole get their shoes rehealed either.

What with the NHS waiting lists...

Few get their shoes polished either. When was the last time yuo
saw someone get their trainsers resouled or cleaned.

Churches are closing too.

Churches get repaired too. Pubs are closing too.

Whoooosh.

Yes it did go over your head didn't it.
Churches get repaired if people thiubnk they are worth repairing,
clothes, shoes get mended but only if the owners think they are worth
it, which is why few bother with 4+ year old phones.

Oh dear oh dear. Bigger whoosh than I thought.

Continue talking to yourself if you like, nobody else knows or cares WTF you're on about.

--
It's not what you wear. It's how you take it off.

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:14:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. ****
cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair,
expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are
terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car
shows to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear
wheel drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The
parts are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own
them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one
you'd have a more balanced view.


Mr Razor Blade is a fool. Pretty well all BMWs have had stability
control for 20 years or more. And traction control. And multi-link rear
suspension. So tail happy went out in the 80s.

Interesting he considers RWD ****e. That must be why all racing cars
are FWD.

Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly stunts.
FWD is easier to control.

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 08:21:11 +0100, charles wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:14:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. ****
cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair,
expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are
terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car
shows to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on
rear wheel drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look
at. The parts are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid
enough to own them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one
you'd have a more balanced view.


Mr Razor Blade is a fool. Pretty well all BMWs have had stability
control for 20 years or more. And traction control. And multi-link
rear suspension. So tail happy went out in the 80s.

Interesting he considers RWD ****e. That must be why all racing cars
are FWD.

Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly stunts.
FWD is easier to control.

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

Not really. Citroen 2CV, Citroen DS, lots of small production earlier
ones. Cord, DKW, ...




--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
charles wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

Herdly. Citroen made FWD cars in the UK long before the Mini.
Alvis made a FWD in the UK in the 1930s. And of course others word wide.

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

--
*Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:14:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. ****
cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair,
expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are
terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car shows
to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear wheel
drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The parts
are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one
you'd have a more balanced view.


Mr Razor Blade is a fool. Pretty well all BMWs have had stability control
for 20 years or more. And traction control. And multi-link rear
suspension. So tail happy went out in the 80s.

Interesting he considers RWD ****e. That must be why all racing cars are
FWD.

Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly stunts.
FWD is easier to control.

front wheel drive was invented for wummin drivers ......

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

front wheel drive was invented for wummin drivers ......

It gives better packaging therefore more interior space against overall
size of the vehicle. But not a consideration in these days of bloated
vehicles.

Was interested to see an Austin 1800 parked alongside a new Jag the other
day. The 1800 can seat 5 of the largest adults with room to spare. The Jag
much less - despite being bigger.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

front wheel drive was invented for wummin drivers ......

It gives better packaging therefore more interior space against overall
size of the vehicle. But not a consideration in these days of bloated
vehicles.

Was interested to see an Austin 1800 parked alongside a new Jag the other
day. The 1800 can seat 5 of the largest adults with room to spare. The Jag
much less - despite being bigger.

rwd solves all the problems of fwd .....and yes it is all style these days
no practicality........

On Friday, 30 June 2017 08:22:01 UTC+1, charles wrote:

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

The 1934 Citroen Traction Avant: about 3/4 of a million were made, so very well known.


NT

On Friday, 30 June 2017 10:31:39 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

rwd solves all the problems of fwd .....and yes it is all style these days
no practicality........

It is all style, bad style.


NT

On 30/06/2017 09:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

Herdly. Citroen made FWD cars in the UK long before the Mini.
Alvis made a FWD in the UK in the 1930s. And of course others word wide.

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.


The mini just used a transverse engine and transmission to make the car
shorter.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
charles wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

Herdly. Citroen made FWD cars in the UK long before the Mini.
Alvis made a FWD in the UK in the 1930s. And of course others word wide.

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

--
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:31:34 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

front wheel drive was invented for wummin drivers ......

It gives better packaging therefore more interior space against overall
size of the vehicle. But not a consideration in these days of bloated
vehicles.

Was interested to see an Austin 1800 parked alongside a new Jag the other
day. The 1800 can seat 5 of the largest adults with room to spare. The Jag
much less - despite being bigger.

rwd solves all the problems of fwd .....and yes it is all style these days
no practicality........

What problems of FWD?

--
Women do not snore, burp, sweat, or fart.
Therefore, they must "bitch" or they will blow up.