On Sep 4, 6:13 pm, wrote:
On 4 Sep, 01:07, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

My

4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector.

Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily
top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too
much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw
aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than
20 years.
I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like
you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads.

Ahhhh.....

You can't afford a Tak?
I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that
neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin.

Regards

donal
--




I could buy a Tak tomorrow, but it would be inferior to my CPC scope
since it would be tougher to setup and would get less use. I'm
planning on a GT-R, which is better than an Aston Martin.



R.

On 5 Sep, 02:12, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
On Sep 4, 6:13 pm, wrote:



On 4 Sep, 01:07, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

My

4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector.

Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily
top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too
much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw
aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than
20 years.
I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like
you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads.

Ahhhh.....

You can't afford a Tak?
I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that
neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin.

Regards

donal
--

I could buy a Tak tomorrow, but it would be inferior to my CPC scope
since it would be tougher to setup and would get less use. I'm
planning on a GT-R, which is better than an Aston Martin.

The GT-R is FASTER than the DB9. If you think that means
that it is better then you are not really qualified to own an Aston.



After all, Aston relies on the fact that footballers' wives do not
drive their cars to maintain their reputation.

An Aston is about Power, Soul and Beauty. If all you want
is Power, then you should buy the GT-R. It would suit you
better.



Regards

Donal
--

On Sep 5, 6:32 pm, wrote:
On 5 Sep, 02:12, "Capt. Rob" wrote:



On Sep 4, 6:13 pm, wrote:

On 4 Sep, 01:07, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

My

4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector.

Uh, Donal....a Cave Astrola reflector from the early 80's will easily
top the highest end 4" refractor. It's simply going to collect too
much light over the 4 and transmission coatings don't equal raw
aperture. They've been making VERY good mirrors for even longer than
20 years.
I thought you knew something about this, but it sounds more like
you've read a lot of Vixen and Tak ads.

Ahhhh.....

You can't afford a Tak?
I've been reading the posts about cars. I think that
neither you nor Oz can afford an Aston Martin.

Regards

donal
--

I could buy a Tak tomorrow, but it would be inferior to my CPC scope
since it would be tougher to setup and would get less use. I'm
planning on a GT-R, which is better than an Aston Martin.

The GT-R is FASTER than the DB9. If you think that means
that it is better then you are not really qualified to own an Aston.





The GT-R is FASTER...oh an it also handles better in ALL conditions,
has AWD, better driving position and comfort, more reliability. The
Evo X also does better, but it's not faster in stock form, though it's
pretty close. The poor DB9 can't even hang with a Vette.
Now, before you look any dopier, consider the following: The new GT-R
does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds and pulls well over a full G on a skid pad.
It's FAR better balanced than a DB9 and can be driven well in snow and
rain. You just don't know what a handful a DB9 is on a twisty road
compared to a GT-R or Evo X and you don't understand how fast the GT-R
is. It's utterly in a class all it's own, which is why I'm on a
waiting list to get one.

Nice work, Donal...you utterly showed your ass again.



R.

On 6 Sep, 01:27, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
You just don't know what a handful a DB9 is on a twisty road

Oh, I do.

Isn't that a bitch?



Regards


Donal
--

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:36:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On 6 Sep, 01:27, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
You just don't know what a handful a DB9 is on a twisty road

Oh, I do.

Isn't that a bitch?



Regards


Donal

You enjoy driving a car that's a handful on a twisty road?




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:08:23 +1000, OzOne wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:36:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You enjoy driving a car that's a handful on a twisty road?


There are comments in the press about its handling.
These comments only apply when driving at the limits,
on the track.
For normal driving it handles much, much better
than an ordinary car. As long as you don't push
the throttle more than half way down, it behaves
like a pusseycat.... an incredibly sleek pusseycat,
that roars like a lion every now and then!




Regards


Donal
--

On Sep 6, 11:25 am, Donal wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:08:23 +1000, OzOne wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:36:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You enjoy driving a car that's a handful on a twisty road?

There are comments in the press about its handling.
These comments only apply when driving at the limits,
on the track.
For normal driving it handles much, much better
than an ordinary car. As long as you don't push
the throttle more than half way down, it behaves
like a pusseycat.... an incredibly sleek pusseycat,
that roars like a lion every now and then!

Regards

Donal
--



Actually, if you look at the Top Gear review, the cars handling is
pretty much unremarkable. It has gobs of power, though the car is
utterly sloth like in spite of it's power. The car uses a simple wish
bone setup that is simply not sophisticated enough for such a car,
even a rear wheel one. It is a comfortable and quick highway cruiser,
but it is nowhere near the performance levels of many other enthusiast
cars. One might argue that it wasn't designed to be, but that would
totally unhinge your point...which has thus far only made it clear
that you don't drive a sports car.
The Evo X handles better and is designed for tuners. The AM is a rich
girl's toy.

Cheers,


R.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:25:54 +0100, Donal
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:08:23 +1000, OzOne wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:36:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You enjoy driving a car that's a handful on a twisty road?


There are comments in the press about its handling.
These comments only apply when driving at the limits,
on the track.
For normal driving it handles much, much better
than an ordinary car. As long as you don't push
the throttle more than half way down, it behaves
like a pusseycat.... an incredibly sleek pusseycat,
that roars like a lion every now and then!




Regards


Donal
--

Donal when I bought my Evo, I did a quick run in then went for a quiet
cruise though a couple of forest roads that had been closed after half
a metre of fresh show.


Nothing other than a tank could have gone through that 100km of road
and certainly not at an average speed in excess of 90km/hr.

If I cruise I drive a supercharged AWD luxury sedan...when I drive, I
prefer the Evo.

Thanks, but no thanks.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sep 5, 8:36 pm, wrote:
On 6 Sep, 01:27, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

You just don't know what a handful a DB9 is on a twisty road

Oh, I do.

Isn't that a bitch?




Indeed, and it's been noted by the reviews. AM tried to move the
engine further back but still missed on achieving the right balance.
The car also uses a dated and very simple suspension, which is why so
many cars beat it in real world driving. One review was kind saying
that the car was at least "honest" in it's handling as it never broke
loose at the limits without warning. Still, it did break loose and the
car got high points for comfort. The nose heavy issue makes for some
numb handling compared to cars like an Evo or BMW M3. An M3 is yet
another car that simply TOASTS the DB9. It's hard to stay focused on
class when a car designer has failed on so many levels. A car is sooo
much more than it's stitching and sheet metal. One day you may learn
that...but I doubt it.

What a laughable car the DB9 is, but cars of this type survive by
generating a lot of false impressions and intangible comments like
"class & soul." At it's price point the DB9 is a shame as a
enthusiasts car. If you need to turn heads and drink gas, then by all
means buy one.




R.

You might as well drive an sst hatchback as an EVO X. Two of the ugliest,
most over-rated cars of all-time. At least the DB9 is beautiful.



"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 8:36 pm, wrote:
On 6 Sep, 01:27, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

You just don't know what a handful a DB9 is on a twisty road

Oh, I do.

Isn't that a bitch?




Indeed, and it's been noted by the reviews. AM tried to move the
engine further back but still missed on achieving the right balance.
The car also uses a dated and very simple suspension, which is why so
many cars beat it in real world driving. One review was kind saying
that the car was at least "honest" in it's handling as it never broke
loose at the limits without warning. Still, it did break loose and the
car got high points for comfort. The nose heavy issue makes for some
numb handling compared to cars like an Evo or BMW M3. An M3 is yet
another car that simply TOASTS the DB9. It's hard to stay focused on
class when a car designer has failed on so many levels. A car is sooo
much more than it's stitching and sheet metal. One day you may learn
that...but I doubt it.

What a laughable car the DB9 is, but cars of this type survive by
generating a lot of false impressions and intangible comments like
"class & soul." At it's price point the DB9 is a shame as a
enthusiasts car. If you need to turn heads and drink gas, then by all
means buy one.




R.