From: Brimstone on 22 Jun 2008 12:05
David Taylor wrote:
> On 2008-06-22, Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 22/06/2008 11:36:31, David Taylor wrote:
>>> On 2008-06-22, Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> I am not the manufacturer trying to blind you with science and
>>>> neither do I gain financialy from you agreeing about the product.
>>>> However, I am an individual who has used the products discussed on
>>>> my own car over the past year.
>>> But you have proven yourself repeatedly in this thread to lack any
>>> sense of objectivity. It's all wooley subjective richness and
>>> deepness and clarity...
>>> Which have all been proven, repeatedly, to be complete bollocks
>>> when the same people are asked to compare products under scientific
>>> double-blind conditions (i.e. where their pre-conceptions _can't_
>>> affect the result).
>> Can you explain your criteria for buying a product to improve the
>> finish of an item? Do you put yourself through this double blind
>> rubbish everytime you want to buy such a product?
>> Maybe you try a few and pick the one you like the best?
>> What are these pre-conceptions you describe? I buy product A and
>> apply it to the car. I buy and apply product B to the car. I make a
>> judgment on what I like best, by what I see on the car and what I as
>> a person want from a finish.
> I tend not to buy things based on "finish" and "shine" and "richness".
> I certainly would never spend £150, or even £30 on a piece of wire.
> I go for something that is good value & works, how it "feels" comes a
> distant second.
Then how do you decide if it's "good value" or not? Whether or not a item is
"good value" is a totally subjective matter.
From: David Taylor on 22 Jun 2008 13:53
On 2008-06-22, Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 22/06/2008 11:42:17, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 2008-06-22, Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 21/06/2008 22:41:05, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>> As I recall, he said he had to travel four hours each way to do the
>>>> job for you. Did he not make any charge for travelling time?
>>> I still didn't pay for my car to be washed.
>> He didn't even wash it!?
> Yes he did, because an unwashed car shouldn't be machine polished.
Well then, you did pay for your car to be washed.
From: Adrian on 22 Jun 2008 16:35
"DanB" <iridiumdan(a)googlemail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:
> So, how come it's ok to have tyres designed to be low rolling resistance
> (so, less grip as a trade of for economy) as long as they have a brand
> name on, but it's not ok to have cheap tyres?
Because they'll still be far, far better than the TeflonFreds.
From: Adrian on 22 Jun 2008 16:38
"Raymond Keattch" <ray.keattch(a)nowhere.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:
>> You want me to say there's a definite difference? Find me one panel,
>> starting from an even start point, and show me it - in the flesh -
>> after sections have been treated with the different products.
> Want to put your car forward for the test - one door with Carnauba and
> the other with Sealant?
No problem. You can have a do it when I'm over with you to blind-test the
interconnects and you prove how good you & the Rover are.
You know me... If I'm proved wrong I'll cheerfully and readily admit it,
From: Adrian on 22 Jun 2008 16:39
steve(a)italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> Want to put your car forward for the test - one door with Carnauba and
>> the other with Sealant?
> To be fair, I don't think anything would improve Adrian's shite old
> Saab, short of a full respray.
> Or a tin of Dulux ;-)
I've spent some time today repainting panels for the Acad.
£5/litre Screwfix red oxide.