dec
Christian Demmler
dec

Far from saying reliability in itself is not a quality associated with cars, but I'd say there are other factors. If you were wondering whether to buy a 2000-ish Subaru Legacy 2.0 or a similarly vintaged Impreza 2.0 and compared the ratings on warranty direct's reliabilityindex.com, you'd get the impression that you

I suppose it can be, but in some cars other, more essential systems rely heavily on the ABS sensor information - your semi-auto/dual-clutch/automatic gearbox might want to read out the ABS for wheel speed information, and your engine management system might need an "everything's going as usual" signal from that

Seems like a pretty unnecessary rule, and speaking as a German, I wouldn't think English has such a complicated, open sentence structure that you really need all the help you can get to determine where one sentence ends and the next begins, or has it?

I guess it was more about the "we'll never give you, or anyone working for the same publisher, any information whatsoever if you dare to ask a private Ferrari owner for access to his car and review it on a track without our permission" intimidation tactics. They're said to be incredibly controlling towards what kind

I guess it was more about the "we'll never give you, or anyone working for the same publisher, any information whatsoever if you dare to ask a private Ferrari owner for access to his car and review it on a track without our permission" intimidation tactics. They're said to be incredibly controlling towards what kind

I totally agree on the reality of your statement, however, I don't think it should necessarily be that way - I mean, there's plenty of work and money that go into this, so why should it be a law of economic nature that this always DECREASES the value of the product?

Now playing

That means from a German's perspective that it can run the Autobahn at it's current, very usable top speed of ~215km/h using about 100kW for about 45min/150km (if the power output meter in this vid is to be believed, and of course if there is not a lot of stop-and-go-traffic). Or it could use 400kW in a high-speed run

Now playing

That means from a German's perspective that it can run the Autobahn at it's current, very usable top speed of ~215km/h using about 100kW for about 45min/150km (if the power output meter in this vid is to be believed, and of course if there is not a lot of stop-and-go-traffic). Or it could use 300kW in a high-speed run

Fun fact: Over here in Germany I actually know more women who are outspoken fans of Top Gear than men, i.e. posting facebook updates like "can't wait for the next season, hope they are going to X for their special this time!", "let's meet up girls, I got Season 18 of Top Gear on DVD" etc. Maybe that's because over

Unrelated comment, I recently came across someone who hated on the Cayman GTS for it's name. "GTS, this is BS! You won't want to use this like a GT car! You need at least a 4 liter V8 to call it a GT or GTS". Well, 924 GTS disagrees a whole lot.

So, again, what are they saying or rather implying not subtly at all? Are they implying that the Su-25 shot down the plane because it was in the area and had missiles on board (what a surprise for any fighter plane in a warzone) - yes. Are they implying the ukrainian SAMs shot down the plane - yes. Now, both combined

I don't know if I get you correctly there. I think they're pretty much just pointing their finger at the Ukrainians, not admitting anything about their own involvement (they even deny having delivered any sort of help whatsoever to the rebels yet in the entire conflict). So it's not surprising that they blame the

The FAS still has it at 7000m (~21000ft), but I guess that's not necessarily the biggest problem in this whole story (probably depends on variants, there are some with upgraded engines I suppose). I'd say the problem is this:

If that's their main theory, then why even bring up the Ukrainian SAM sites in that same conference? http://rt.com/news/174412-ma… I guess it's to have a backup in the fairly probable case the damage pattern and probably also the position of the detonation relative to the plane is soon deemed to be inconsistent with

Can anyone actually tell me what the Russians are even trying to say did shoot the plane down? Was it an Ukrainian ground attack plane shooting it down by mistake (as in, accidentially engage targets high above you coming from your own side while engaging enemy troops on the ground) OR was it a Ukrainian SAM? I mean,

I think there is some truth to that, even though I don't have an idea how much data the interface of that SAM-system actually displays, and how much it relies for such questions normally on being part of an information network and a command chain. My personal reasoning would be: Russia was so far happy to supply

And here is a report on a pro-rebel website from three days ago in which the rebels boast about getting a Buk operational with the help of a russian civilian company helping them to repair the electrics, or at least it seems like it (bearing in mind I base this on cryptic-as-usual Google Translate and the opinion of

Well, I wouldn't completely brush away the possibility, even though it does look a whole lot like these incompetent assholes did just repair and deploy a captured Buk SAM system with russian help three days ago (on a pro-rebel website: http://vognebroda.net/camolet-an-26-…), put someone in there who thought he'd be a

A later post on that account (http://vk.com/strelkov_info) says that they just post information from public forums unless it's indicated by some sort of arrow or banner that it actually comes directly from the rebel commander Strelkov). Seems like someone must have mistaken a big smoldering jet on the ground for yet