So, PinkoStinko, you claim, in the thread "The fantasies of little men
knackered" and perhaps elsewhere (1) that from Adelaide in South
Australia to Darwin in the Northern Territory your little Audi can beat
the ton-up average of a forty-year old Ford Falcon GTHO?

It's a simple question. Please answer yes or no.

Andre Jute
HImself. In glorious Technicolor.

(1) I don't actually know as I haven't read your posts beyond the first
par. You don't write well enough, and you aren't intrinsically
interesting enough, to hold my attention when you go on beyond a
soundbite or at most two.

Andre Jute wrote:

So, PinkoStinko, you claim, in the thread "The fantasies of little men
knackered" and perhaps elsewhere (1) that from Adelaide in South
Australia to Darwin in the Northern Territory your little Audi can beat
the ton-up average of a forty-year old Ford Falcon GTHO?

I reckon it would be a dead cert actually.

UK motoring magazine 5th Gear recently ran a couple of 15 ? yr old classics
- a BMW M3 and a Lancia Delta Turbo HF Integrale round their preferred
track. They were fun to drive but only actually a second or two faster
thana Ford Ka and a Transit van.

I expect a modern Audi would entirely trash an old muscle car's
performance.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

So, PinkoStinko, you claim, in the thread "The fantasies of little men
knackered" and perhaps elsewhere (1) that from Adelaide in South
Australia to Darwin in the Northern Territory your little Audi can beat
the ton-up average of a forty-year old Ford Falcon GTHO?

I reckon it would be a dead cert actually.

UK motoring magazine 5th Gear recently ran a couple of 15 ? yr old
classics
- a BMW M3 and a Lancia Delta Turbo HF Integrale round their preferred
track. They were fun to drive but only actually a second or two faster
thana Ford Ka and a Transit van.


Interesting. Were the oldies on modern tires? I know very little about cars,
but I know many people heavily involved in motor racing and I've heard
countless times that modern tire technology is really the single biggest
advancement that has contributed to faster lap times.

Also, at least in F1, 2 seconds per lap is forever and millions (if not tens
of millions) in sponsorhip money.


Cheers,

Margaret

"Margaret von B." wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

So, PinkoStinko, you claim, in the thread "The fantasies of little men
knackered" and perhaps elsewhere (1) that from Adelaide in South
Australia to Darwin in the Northern Territory your little Audi can beat
the ton-up average of a forty-year old Ford Falcon GTHO?

I reckon it would be a dead cert actually.

UK motoring magazine 5th Gear recently ran a couple of 15 ? yr old
classics
- a BMW M3 and a Lancia Delta Turbo HF Integrale round their preferred
track. They were fun to drive but only actually a second or two faster
thana Ford Ka and a Transit van.


Interesting. Were the oldies on modern tires?

Preumably. These are cars that were in daily use.

I know very little about cars,
but I know many people heavily involved in motor racing and I've heard
countless times that modern tire technology is really the single biggest
advancement that has contributed to faster lap times.

Not really to that extent on road cars. F1 etc is very different.


Also, at least in F1, 2 seconds per lap is forever and millions (if not tens
of millions) in sponsorhip money.

Sure. Different game. Bear in mind that the vehicles that these 2 old classics
beat by ~ 2 secs were just modern 'everyday' vehicles including a delivery van.
Today's hot cars were streets ahead.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

So, PinkoStinko, you claim, in the thread "The fantasies of little men
knackered" and perhaps elsewhere (1) that from Adelaide in South
Australia to Darwin in the Northern Territory your little Audi can beat
the ton-up average of a forty-year old Ford Falcon GTHO?

I reckon it would be a dead cert actually.

**I may just do so, though the old Phase III was a pretty capable grand
tourer. It proved to be phenomenally reliable in endurance races. It is the
most sought after Australian manufactured car.



UK motoring magazine 5th Gear recently ran a couple of 15 ? yr old
classics
- a BMW M3 and a Lancia Delta Turbo HF Integrale round their preferred
track. They were fun to drive but only actually a second or two faster
thana Ford Ka and a Transit van.

I expect a modern Audi would entirely trash an old muscle car's
performance.

**Not as much as you'd think. The Phase III HO (Ford Falcon GTHO Phase III)
was a pretty serious car in it's day. The fastest 4 door production sedan on
the planet. Even now, it's no slouch. The engine developed 280kW right off
the showroom floor. 160kph (100MPH) would come up in less than 15 seconds.
Top speed was around 250kph. Suspension (such as it was) ensured that it
could actually go 'round corners respectably well, though certainly without
much in the way of refinement. I imagine that if fitted with modern rubber,
it could do the job pretty well, albeit rather harshly.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

So, PinkoStinko, you claim, in the thread "The fantasies of little men
knackered" and perhaps elsewhere (1) that from Adelaide in South
Australia to Darwin in the Northern Territory your little Audi can beat
the ton-up average of a forty-year old Ford Falcon GTHO?

I reckon it would be a dead cert actually.

The question was posed to Oinkerton, not to you, Poopie.

UK motoring magazine 5th Gear recently ran a couple of 15 ? yr old classics
- a BMW M3 and a Lancia Delta Turbo HF Integrale round their preferred
track. They were fun to drive but only actually a second or two faster
thana Ford Ka and a Transit van.

Why should that surprise anyone? The entire suspension system of modern
cars is so much better developed, and front-drive now so prevalent,
that such a result is predictable. In fact, I signalled my answer to
this numbingly predictable response twice in the *thread title*, with
"Cart-Sprung" and again with "Old-Style".

I expect a modern Audi would entirely trash an old muscle car's
performance.

Why is everyone so keen to prove the obvious, that modern cars are
faster than old cars, just because I say a Ford GTHO was fast forty
years ago? You guys are like bantam cocks, your hackles always up.

Graham

Andre Jute

Andre Jute wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

So, PinkoStinko, you claim, in the thread "The fantasies of little men
knackered" and perhaps elsewhere (1) that from Adelaide in South
Australia to Darwin in the Northern Territory your little Audi can beat
the ton-up average of a forty-year old Ford Falcon GTHO?

I reckon it would be a dead cert actually.

The question was posed to Oinkerton, not to you, Poopie.

UK motoring magazine 5th Gear recently ran a couple of 15 ? yr old classics
- a BMW M3 and a Lancia Delta Turbo HF Integrale round their preferred
track. They were fun to drive but only actually a second or two faster
thana Ford Ka and a Transit van.

Why should that surprise anyone? The entire suspension system of modern
cars is so much better developed, and front-drive now so prevalent,
that such a result is predictable. In fact, I signalled my answer to
this numbingly predictable response twice in the *thread title*, with
"Cart-Sprung" and again with "Old-Style".

I expect a modern Audi would entirely trash an old muscle car's
performance.

Why is everyone so keen to prove the obvious, that modern cars are
faster than old cars, just because I say a Ford GTHO was fast forty
years ago? You guys are like bantam cocks, your hackles always up.

Your obsession with old technology in all its forms is almost endearing.

Graham

Margaret von B. wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

So, PinkoStinko, you claim, in the thread "The fantasies of little men
knackered" and perhaps elsewhere (1) that from Adelaide in South
Australia to Darwin in the Northern Territory your little Audi can beat
the ton-up average of a forty-year old Ford Falcon GTHO?

I reckon it would be a dead cert actually.

UK motoring magazine 5th Gear recently ran a couple of 15 ? yr old
classics
- a BMW M3 and a Lancia Delta Turbo HF Integrale round their preferred
track. They were fun to drive but only actually a second or two faster
thana Ford Ka and a Transit van.


Interesting. Were the oldies on modern tires? I know very little about cars,
but I know many people heavily involved in motor racing and I've heard
countless times that modern tire technology is really the single biggest
advancement that has contributed to faster lap times.

Technology from the lower classes of racing filters down to road tires
eventually but in this case the test would have been crook if the older
cars were not on the originally specified tyres. You see, suspension
design, or fine-tuning of an inherited design, starts with the
available tyres to be specified for the car. Modern tires are better
than those fifteen years ago but it is the rest of the suspension in
which huge strides has been made. (Technically, the tyre is part of the
suspension -- the whole concept is a continuum.) Better roadholding in
any class of car, decade on decade, is also accounted for by specified
tyre widths creeping up incrementally; a key thing to watch out for is
that a fraction of a milimetre wider contact patch, caused by better
carcass construction in a tyre of apparently the same nominal width, as
a percentage can make a very big difference to that tiny patch through
which every aspect of automobile behaviour is controlled. Thus very
small changes in tyres can have a huge effect on lap times. Also, newer
cars are often front-wheel drive, which is a help on the curves of a
track.

Also, at least in F1, 2 seconds per lap is forever and millions (if not tens
of millions) in sponsorhip money.

Apples and oranges. Grand prix racing is on slicks. Even in the present
interregnum, when grooved tyres are enforced (a rule already changed --
they're going back to slicks), the tyres were stratospherically
specialized. That technology is too rarified to filter down directly or
quickly. The recent upsets in F1 were caused by problems in the
Bridgestone compound but that is a difficulty specific to the F1
stickiness/heat dispersion paradigm.

In passenger tyres, which have to last longer than c400 miles (or c70
miles now that tire changes are returning to F1), the compound is a
solved problem with only refinements foreseen; larger strides are
expected in carcass construction and some development of tread pattern
remains likely. However, in fifteen years even small incremental
improvements can add us substantially.

HTH.

Andre Jute

Andre Jute wrote:

Grand prix racing is on slicks.

Blimey ! You can't even get that right. How long have those grooves been there ?

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Grand prix racing is on slicks.

Blimey ! You can't even get that right. How long have those grooves been there ?

Graham

Here we have an excellent example of what was wrong with British
education under the socialist wreckers. This "Graham" is Graham
Stevenson who posts as "Pooh Bear" and is known on several newsgroups
as Poopie for his propensity to soil himself. He was "educated" in an
inner city ghetto trade school jumped up to a university department by
executive fiat and had his ticket punched so that he has a diploma to
brag about. He goes around calling himself an "engineer" even though
his knowledge of electronics is less than that of the lowest grade of
American Navy technician.

But Stevens's mentality, his intelligence, and his grasp of English is
of such a mediocre standard that he can only hold one simple idea in
his mind at once, and that only tenuously. Here's what I wrote:

Grand prix racing is on slicks. Even in the present
interregnum, when grooved tyres are enforced (a rule already changed --
they're going back to slicks)

to which Graham "Poopie" Stevenson responds with utter incomphresion:

Blimey ! You can't even get that right. How long have those grooves been there ?

Let me give it to you in language for morons and in soundbites you can
consume one at a time in your own time, Poop.

1. Grand prix racing is traditionally on slicks.

2. There is a brief interlude in which grooved tires are mandated.

3. The rule has already been changed.

4. They're going back to racing on slicks.

5. Grand prix racing is traditionally on slicks.

6. The brief period of racing on grooves is merely an interlude.

7. They're going back to racing on slicks.

Got it now? Want me to say over and over again in different words?

"Interegnum" means all of that to those with adequate educations. But
take care not to steal a word you don't understand and perhaps make
even more of a fool of yourself by using it ineptly.

HTH.

The rest of you, be kind to Poopie. He can't help being inferior. A
wicked government did it to him by, contrary to the observable truth,
encouraging him to believe that he is as good as any man.

Andre Jute

Andre Jute wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Grand prix racing is on slicks.

Blimey ! You can't even get that right. How long have those grooves been there ?

Graham

Here we have an excellent example of what was wrong with British
education under the socialist wreckers.

That's very funny seeing as a I went to a private 'prep school' followed by the 2nd
oldest public school in the UK !

This "Graham" is Graham
Stevenson who posts as "Pooh Bear" and is known on several newsgroups
as Poopie for his propensity to soil himself. He was "educated" in an
inner city ghetto trade school jumped up to a university department by
executive fiat and had his ticket punched so that he has a diploma to
brag about. He goes around calling himself an "engineer" even though
his knowledge of electronics is less than that of the lowest grade of
American Navy technician.

You're a know-nothing jerk Joot.

A pompous, bigoted, self-opinionated, upper-class-twit, know-nothing jerk in fact !

Graham

"Poopie Bear"

That's very funny seeing as a I went to a private 'prep school' followed
by the 2nd
oldest public school in the UK !


** You're a know-nothing jerk - Graham Stevenson.

A pompous, bigoted, self-opinionated, upper-class-twit, know-nothing jerk
in fact !




....... Phil

Pooh Bear wrote:

That's very funny seeing as a I went to a private 'prep school' followed by the 2nd
oldest public school in the UK !

For our colonial friends I should point out that a British 'public school' is actually a
private one ( traditionally of high academic achievement ) ! Your 'public school' is
called a State school in the UK.

Graham

Phil Allison wrote:

"Poopie Bear"

That's very funny seeing as a I went to a private 'prep school' followed
by the 2nd
oldest public school in the UK !

** You're a know-nothing jerk - Graham Stevenson.

A pompous, bigoted, self-opinionated, upper-class-twit, know-nothing jerk
in fact !

I know you're just jealous Phil.

Graham

"Phil Allison" wrote in message

"Poopie Bear"

That's very funny seeing as a I went to a private 'prep
school' followed by the 2nd
oldest public school in the UK !


** You're a know-nothing jerk - Graham Stevenson.

A pompous, bigoted, self-opinionated, upper-class-twit,
know-nothing jerk in fact !

Boys, boys, Boys!

It's always sad when two of the more technically-adept posters around, are
at each other's throats.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote in message

"Poopie Bear"

That's very funny seeing as a I went to a private 'prep
school' followed by the 2nd
oldest public school in the UK !


** You're a know-nothing jerk - Graham Stevenson.

A pompous, bigoted, self-opinionated, upper-class-twit,
know-nothing jerk in fact !

Boys, boys, Boys!

It's always sad when two of the more technically-adept posters around, are
at each other's throats.

Are there not at least 3 ppl of "uncompleted personal constructions"
all talking not a jot about tube craft ?

Patrick Turner.

"Arny Krueger"

It's always sad when two of the more technically-adept posters around, are
at each other's throats.


** That is not the way it is.

Stevenson is a monstrous charlatan and a criminal libeller.

Same as Dorsey.

Same as Rivers.

Same as all your adopted pals.

I am not one.




......... Phil

On 29 Dec 2005 13:45:43 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

So, PinkoStinko, you claim, in the thread "The fantasies of little men
knackered" and perhaps elsewhere (1) that from Adelaide in South
Australia to Darwin in the Northern Territory your little Audi can beat
the ton-up average of a forty-year old Ford Falcon GTHO?

Actually, what I claimed was that you had done no such thing, and I
stated as an observable fact that my little Audi is comprehensively
faster than a '71 Falcon GTHO.

It's a simple question. Please answer yes or no.

Yes. Police non-action permitting, of course..............

Andre Jute
HImself. In glorious Technicolor.

(1) I don't actually know as I haven't read your posts beyond the first
par. You don't write well enough, and you aren't intrinsically
interesting enough, to hold my attention when you go on beyond a
soundbite or at most two.

Jute, you pathetic liar, you are so self-obsessed that you won't have
missed a single word, in case you were mentioned..................

BTW, I don't need lessons in writing from a failed hack such as you.

Also, it's noticeable that only those with no rational argument resort
to schoolyard names like 'Pinkothicko' and 'PinkoStinko', due to a
general lack of flair and imagination.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:43:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

So, PinkoStinko, you claim, in the thread "The fantasies of little men
knackered" and perhaps elsewhere (1) that from Adelaide in South
Australia to Darwin in the Northern Territory your little Audi can beat
the ton-up average of a forty-year old Ford Falcon GTHO?

I reckon it would be a dead cert actually.

**I may just do so, though the old Phase III was a pretty capable grand
tourer. It proved to be phenomenally reliable in endurance races. It is the
most sought after Australian manufactured car.

No problem with that, I mostly just think that Jute is as ever just
making it up about his claimed Adelaide-Darwin-Adelaide run.

However, given that the Audi will cruise all day in air-conditioned
comfort at 220 klicks, with only stops for fuel required, I don't see
much of a contest.

UK motoring magazine 5th Gear recently ran a couple of 15 ? yr old
classics
- a BMW M3 and a Lancia Delta Turbo HF Integrale round their preferred
track. They were fun to drive but only actually a second or two faster
thana Ford Ka and a Transit van.

I expect a modern Audi would entirely trash an old muscle car's
performance.

**Not as much as you'd think. The Phase III HO (Ford Falcon GTHO Phase III)
was a pretty serious car in it's day. The fastest 4 door production sedan on
the planet. Even now, it's no slouch. The engine developed 280kW right off
the showroom floor. 160kph (100MPH) would come up in less than 15 seconds.
Top speed was around 250kph. Suspension (such as it was) ensured that it
could actually go 'round corners respectably well, though certainly without
much in the way of refinement. I imagine that if fitted with modern rubber,
it could do the job pretty well, albeit rather harshly.

I get the same or better performance with 100kW less power, with
vastly better cornering, braking and traction. Of course, you'd hope
to achieve *something* in 35 years! :-)

OTOH, Graham did say *a* modern Audi. Consider the RS6, much more the
modern equivalent of the Falcon GTHO......................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 29 Dec 2005 17:27:22 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Also, newer
cars are often front-wheel drive, which is a help on the curves of a
track.

You really do know sod all about vehicle dynamics, Jute.

That howler says it all.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Boys, boys, Boys!

The craving sets in...

Scary.

Cacaphiliac Phillison said:

I am not one.

Rather than leave that thought dangling, Caca, tell us what you think
you are. It's not enough to say you're "not one" because each of the
rest of us can easily identify a common type of human that you're
definitely not. So be a good little pit-bull and tell us what you
believe you are.

"George M. Middiarse"



** What a pong.

Phew.

Makes ya wanna puke ......




.......... Phil

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote in message

"Poopie Bear"

That's very funny seeing as a I went to a private 'prep
school' followed by the 2nd
oldest public school in the UK !


** You're a know-nothing jerk - Graham Stevenson.

A pompous, bigoted, self-opinionated, upper-class-twit,
know-nothing jerk in fact !

Boys, boys, Boys!

It's always sad when two of the more technically-adept posters around, are
at each other's throats.

Being 'mauled' by Allison is not unlike having a fluffy bunny have a go at you
!

It's even funnier when he's shown to have his facts wrong. I think he's
jealous 'cos his designs haven't made it into volume manufacture, unlike my
own.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote

... should point out that a British 'public school' is actually a
private one ( traditionally of high academic achievement ) !

Some are, some aren't. The difference was mainly the ability to
bribe universities. Now all schools cheat systematically so class is
the sole selection criterion for the few remaining real HE
institutions.

Mass education in the traditional sense is no longer desirable for
capitalist "democracy".

cheers, Ian

"Pooh Bear"


= Graham Stevenson , the vilest pommy turd after Phildo.

= congenital charlatan and know nothing autistic prick.

= an unemployable, useless pile of puke.




......... Phil

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Dec 2005 17:27:22 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Also, newer
cars are often front-wheel drive, which is a help on the curves of a
track.

You really do know sod all about vehicle dynamics, Jute.

That howler says it all.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

You want to go sideways and spin off your power in tyre scrub, that's
entirely up to you. Check the BTCC laptimes. They're FWD cars.

Andre Jute

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:16:49 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Also, it's noticeable that only those with no rational argument resort
to schoolyard names like 'Pinkothicko' and 'PinkoStinko', due to a
general lack of flair and imagination.

That's pretty "vile" alright.

On 30 Dec 2005 06:54:51 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Dec 2005 17:27:22 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Also, newer
cars are often front-wheel drive, which is a help on the curves of a
track.

You really do know sod all about vehicle dynamics, Jute.

That howler says it all.

You want to go sideways and spin off your power in tyre scrub, that's
entirely up to you. Check the BTCC laptimes. They're FWD cars.

Of course they are, you dickhead, because

(a) almost all current small/medium production cars are FWD

(b) RWD BTCC cars carry a 100kg handicap. Consider why that is.....

No serious racing car is anything other than RWD, and almost always
mid-engined (the Panoz being an honourable exception at Le Mans).

As ever, you are trying to cover your ignorance of vehicle dynamics,
same as you always try to cover your ignorance of tube amp design.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Andre Jute wrote:

I advised them to take the factory's "police special" brakes and not to
bother with the "police special" engine

Hah ! Even the Bluesmobile had the 'cop motor' !

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote in message

"Poopie Bear"

That's very funny seeing as a I went to a private 'prep
school' followed by the 2nd
oldest public school in the UK !


** You're a know-nothing jerk - Graham Stevenson.

A pompous, bigoted, self-opinionated, upper-class-twit,
know-nothing jerk in fact !

Boys, boys, Boys!

It's always sad when two of the more technically-adept posters around,
are
at each other's throats.

Being 'mauled' by Allison is not unlike having a fluffy bunny have a go at
you
!


You obviously haven't seen Monty Python and The Holy Grail. :-)

It's even funnier when he's shown to have his facts wrong. I think he's
jealous 'cos his designs haven't made it into volume manufacture, unlike
my
own.


Does the stuff he designs actually work?

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Pooh Bear"


= Graham Stevenson , the vilest pommy turd after Phildo.

= congenital charlatan and know nothing autistic prick.

= an unemployable, useless pile of puke.




........ Phil

Could Phil be antother of the Jute sockpuppets?

dave weil said:

Also, it's noticeable that only those with no rational argument resort
to schoolyard names like 'Pinkothicko' and 'PinkoStinko', due to a
general lack of flair and imagination.

That's pretty "vile" alright.

Uh-oh. Is Stewart about to "gorge" himself on hypocrisy yet again?

"George M. Middius" wrote:

dave weil said:

Also, it's noticeable that only those with no rational argument resort
to schoolyard names like 'Pinkothicko' and 'PinkoStinko', due to a
general lack of flair and imagination.

That's pretty "vile" alright.

Uh-oh. Is Stewart about to "gorge" himself on hypocrisy yet again?

Just out of curiosity Middius...... Do you actually ever post anything about
audio or are your posts exclusively personal insults ?

Graham

George M. Middius wrote:
dave weil said:

Also, it's noticeable that only those with no rational argument resort
to schoolyard names like 'Pinkothicko' and 'PinkoStinko', due to a
general lack of flair and imagination.

That's pretty "vile" alright.

Uh-oh. Is Stewart about to "gorge" himself on hypocrisy yet again?

If irony killed.

ScottW

Poopie whined:

Just out of curiosity Middius...... Do you actually ever post anything about
audio or are your posts exclusively personal insults ?

You first, Poophead.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


It's always sad when two of the more technically-adept posters around, are
at each other's throats.


Zelniker alert!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:45:06 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

I advised them to take the factory's "police special" brakes and not to
bother with the "police special" engine

Hah ! Even the Bluesmobile had the 'cop motor' !

Give Jute time - by New Year he'll be claiming that his Falcon was the
one they borrowed to use in Mad Max...................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Andre Jute wrote:

Here we have the ne plus ultra of childishness.

It's called top-posting you useless git.

Graham

Pukey & Jooty, sittin' in a tree....

Stewart Pinkerton claims he will do it in his little pink Audi TT
shopping trolley. I did it in a big Ford GTHO designed tough to survive
on that road; the GTHO was so wrecked after I did it a second time that
the leasing company refused to take it back and it was scrapped.
(Fortunately it wasn't my car...)

Typical Jute lies, sdince he never actually did this run at all.
BTW, you dumb cluck, it's not a TT.

Is this piccie representative of the older of the two gentleman's
saloons in question?

http://www.cia.com.au/seale/xygt1.jpg

Whatever else one might think of such a car, even a lilac-colored Audi
is better looking. BTW, Pinkie, can you point us to a depiction of your
car? The A3 doesn't seem to come with anything like "lilac" currently:

http://ak4-uk.audi.co.uk/controller....page=&v_a y=0