Yep , I guess if my new R/T got destroyed , there wouldn't be much reason
to be alive anyway .
At 06:10 AM 6/12/98 PDT, you wrote:
>
>>From owner-dakota-truck@buffnet4.buffnet.net Fri Jun 12 04:20:41 1998
>>Received: (from majordom@localhost) by buffnet4.buffnet.net
>(8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA06288 for dakota-truck-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998
>07:16:05 -0400 (EDT)
>>Received: from buffnet9.buffnet.net (buffnet9.buffnet.net
>[205.246.19.19]) by buffnet4.buffnet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id
>HAA06284 for <dakota-truck>; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:16:03 -0400 (EDT)
>>Received: from webserv2.buffnet.net(205.247.125.2) by
>buffnet9.buffnet.net via smap (V2.0)
>> id xma002770; Fri, 12 Jun 98 07:15:50 -0400
>>Received: from garlic.negia.net (root@garlic.negia.net [206.61.0.14])
>> by webserv2.buffnet.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA26295
>> for <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:16:12 -0400 (EDT)
>> (envelope-from SkepticX@negia.net)
>>Received: from negia.net (ppp6.negia.net [206.61.0.205])
>> by garlic.negia.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA09929
>> for <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:10:50 -0400
>>Message-ID: <357DB1C2.9136D8FA@negia.net>
>>Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 18:05:55 -0400
>>From: Skeptic X <SkepticX@negia.net>
>>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U)
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
>>Subject: Re: DML: shoulder harness failure
>>References: <D1113914F4B9D011A7870020AFD36F4633F95C@dc.anjura.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>Sender: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet4.buffnet.net
>>Reply-To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
>>X-Mailing-List: The Dakota Mailing List
>>X-Mailing-List-Owner: stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu
>>X-URL: http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/WWW/DAKOTA/dakota.html
>>X-Unsubscribe-Info: Send "unsubscribe dakota-truck" to
>majordomo@buffnet.net.
>>X-Unsubscribe-URL:
>http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/WWW/CGI-BIN/dml.html
>>
>>Craig Baltzer wrote:
>>
>>> Luv these "they should have crashed thousands and then averaged the
>>> results like "real science"" comments. They took a vehicle, crashed
>it
>>> under controlled conditions, and came up with the "poor" rating.
>There
>>> was a Dak that rolled off the line and when crashed faired poorly.
>Who
>>> cares if the next 2 did well, and then the 3rd did poorly again?
>Point
>>> is Dodge is making trucks that fare poorly in these tests, and there
>is
>>> no "SURVIVE" option code to make sure you don't get one exactly like
>the
>>> one that failed. For the "scientific" guys, this is the negative
>proof
>>> of the asertion that "Dakotas are very safe trucks in crash tests";
>you
>>> don't need to crash any more trucks once you've found one that is
>>> unsafe.
>>
>>Why is it that you can so easily see the negative side, but can't
>recognize
>>the positive? Sure, if you get a "bad" Dakota you can expect problems.
>>That's an inherent risk with buying any vehicle. If you buy a "good"
>Dakota
>>though, you can expect to have fewer problems (and there's no reliable
>way
>>I'm aware of to figure that out ahead of time). You can understand that
>as
>>well--no?
>>
>>As far as the lack of repetition in the 40mph off-set crash test; it IS
>a
>>scientific draw-back, whether you'd rather see it as a black and white
>issue
>>or not. Perhaps there is a problem with Dakotas and head injuries at
>40mph
>>off-set collisions--probably so, according to the indications of the
>test.
>>But one test of a randomly selected vehicle is shoddy science. Sure,
>the
>>TEST conditions are controlled, but suppose the Dakota used for the
>test had
>>a few critical welds that weren't properly done? and what if it had a
>few
>>critical welds that were OVERdone for some reason, and therefore
>stronger
>>than average? The results of a single trial aren't very reliable. We
>may
>>have a smaller problem in a collision than the test indicates, we may
>have a
>>larger one, or the test may have been nominal. Unless more Dakotas are
>>tested we simply won't know.
>>
>>Yes, it IS important to do such things scientifically in order to
>acquire
>>reliable results.
>>
>>Skeptic X
>>
>>
>>
>Yeah man I agree with you whole heartedly. even if my dak was the worst
>death trap on the road as far as crash tests go i still love my truck
>and turn heads every day. So i dont really care about those tests my
>tests have passed with flying colors and thats the test of reliability
>style and unsurpassed style of witch I havent seen since the late 50's
>early 60's....
>
> loyal-proud dak owner
> curt peregoy
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:55 EDT