On 2/26/07, Mohammed Adnène Trojette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> >- Hard work - the reduced participation made more work hard work IMO;
>
> Some worked harder to find and solve RC bugs.
Take a wall.
Take a car going fast towards this wall.
Take people working hard to take the wall down so that the car doesn't
hit it.
Was the car right to run for a crash test?
Hi Mohammed,
Unfortunately, this thread is diverting to a point where it seems that
i agreed with dunc-tank experiment. No, i didn't. Sometimes it's
harder to have a contrary opinion against something and express what
you think can be learned from the experience, even when it's just a
"let us don't repeat that never".
Answering your question more directly: Yes, while crash tests break a
car (or part of it) that could be used as a base for a new car, the
crash tests results tells a lot for those who are behind them. They
learn and i think we should learn with dunc-tank. Unfortunately or
not, it happened and now it's up to us evolve.
Thanks for your question anyway. :-)
regards,
-- stratus
http://stratusandtheswirl.blogspot.com
