WRX vs RX8 - Page 11
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011
Results 151 to 165 of 165

This is a discussion on WRX vs RX8 within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX My bugeye's interior is plenty nice enough for me, cheap or no. I actually prefer its ...

  1. #151
    and the Funky Bunch Calvinball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Philly Area
    Posts
    5,899
    Quote Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX View Post
    My bugeye's interior is plenty nice enough for me, cheap or no. I actually prefer its stark functionality over some "prettier" dashes in the Ford/Nissan/Toyota rentals that I've had, recently. (some cheap materials there, too, on the Fords)

    Is it an Audi level of niceness? Not even close. But that's what you pay for in a $40K+ car. I'd much rather have an "acceptable" interior and have the money put towards the mechanicals.

    But then, that's why we're all here, right?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	i-was-told-there-would-be-punch-and-pie-bear.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	47.8 KB 
ID:	102734
    - Will
    First Mods: What to do and what not to do
    Current Car: 2014 Golf TDI
    Previous Cars:2012 WRB WRX Hatch, 2004 RSX-S, 1998 Grand Prix GTP
    "Isn't it amazing how smart you feel when you just aren't being stupid?"

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #152
    Captain James of the SS Impreza has gone down with the ship Drews's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Davey Jones Locker
    Posts
    8,454
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX View Post
    My bugeye's interior is plenty nice enough for me, cheap or no. I actually prefer its stark functionality over some "prettier" dashes in the Ford/Nissan/Toyota rentals that I've had, recently. (some cheap materials there, too, on the Fords)

    Is it an Audi level of niceness? Not even close. But that's what you pay for in a $40K+ car. I'd much rather have an "acceptable" interior and have the money put towards the mechanicals.

    But then, that's why we're all here, right?
    I should post up a picture of the dash in our new truck. There are buttons that I have no clue what they do.
    Hawk-Eye Alliance #Eleventy,000,000,000|N.E.R.D. Member 20,000
    Stable: 2014 Hyundai Veloster Turbo (Matte Grey), 06 LGT, 03 WRX, 98 RS, 00 OBS


    Resident Clubdub Debbie Downer. I'd love your ideas if you kept them to yourself. Subarus suck, get a new wife.

    Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you to their level and beat you with experience.

  4. #153
    UnBanned Sinister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Denver Metro Area
    Posts
    17,547
    I Support ClubWRX
    Push them... you'll figure it out
    Kevin
    Moderator
    Sinister's Blowoff Valve FAQ
    WRX Gas Mileage FAQ
    Sinister's Progress Thread - 430whp 429wtq - Sold
    Firearms Enthusiasts Thread

    The Sheriff's Star at the bottom left corner rates a user's reputation.
    If you found a user's post to be helpful or quite the opposite, please make it known to them by clicking the Star!

  5. #154
    Registered User 02scoobywrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    56
    I prefer the bug eye interior over just about any other interior in an affordable car.

  6. #155
    Admiral Ackbar mycologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Late Devonian
    Posts
    12,422
    I Support ClubWRX
    I'm glad the people who come up with these definitions are not employed to categorize biological organisms, or we would have a real mess. Who gets to decide these things anyways? Is it a peer reviewed process, and more importantly is there a complete Latin description?

    The fact of the matter is the defining characteristic of a rotary engine is that the block rotates, not the crank. Neither the Wankel nor the radial fit this characteristic. So, regardless of how Wiki and others bastardize the terms, as all terms are typically destined to become jargon anyways, a Wankel shares far less in common with a real rotary than it does with an in-line motor, because the internal parts are rotating around inside the "block". If they wanted to call it a type of radial engine, that would be more parsimonious but still stupid.

    So, by the power invested in me by having a keyboard and an internet connection, I hereby proclaim that this is a chicken. Why? simply because it tastes like chicken!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rattskul.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	41.1 KB 
ID:	102740
    "From a little spark may burst a mighty flame." - Dante
    "The stitch is lost unless the thread is knotted." - Italian proverb

  7. #156
    Administrator RayfieldsWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Old Folks Home
    Posts
    46,786
    I Support ClubWRX
    Well shoot...I always thought that in a true rotary engine, the world rotated around the engine. My whole world view is upside down.
    --Ray
    Grandfather of the Bugeye Mafia
    2013 Subaru BRZ Limited
    2002 Subaru WRX Bugeyebrid Wagon

  8. #157
    Admiral Ackbar mycologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Late Devonian
    Posts
    12,422
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX View Post
    Well shoot...I always thought that in a true rotary engine, the world rotated around the engine. My whole world view is upside down.
    What if it was flying straight up at the pole? It could stop time.
    "From a little spark may burst a mighty flame." - Dante
    "The stitch is lost unless the thread is knotted." - Italian proverb

  9. #158
    Admiral Ackbar mycologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Late Devonian
    Posts
    12,422
    I Support ClubWRX
    Here is some light reading that is highly relevant. Unfortunately the author ends up inventing a bunch of new jargon while trying to explain the uselessness of jargon.

    Cliff notes: Mazda and others who applied "rotary" to a wankel made it a non-concept.

    "Some typologíes and their operational problems
    Lake trophic status
    The ambiguity of typologies involving concept clusters is clearly
    illustrated by the case of lake trophic status. Lakes have long been divided
    into oligotrophic and eutrophic on the basis of their productivity or
    trophic status (Naumann 1930; Hutchinson 1969; Rigler 1975a). Since
    thís dichotomy was erected, lake trophic status has become one of the
    most studied and best known áreas in limnology (Carlson 1977; Peters
    1986; OECD 1982), but there is still no standard definition of eutrophy
    and oligotrophy. Oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes may diífer in nutrient
    concentrations, nutrient dynamics, distribution and abundance of plants
    and animáis, hypolimnetic oxygen levéis, transparency, primary and
    secondary production, flsh yield, lake morphometry, and the economic
    development of the drainage basin. In principie, the classification could
    be based on any of these characters and appropriate relations developed
    to allow translations among typologies based on different properties
    (Carlson 1977; Vollenweider 1987). In practice, there are few rules and
    different lakes cannot be consistently classified. Thus if told that one lake
    is more eutrophic than another, one knows very little because this phrase
    could mean so many different things. Indeed, when limnologists from
    different parts of the world compare notes, they may find that what is an
    oligotrophic lake for one is eutrophic for another. The classification is
    too subjective.
    The terms oligotrophy and eutrophy now do little more than signal a
    general área of limnology. Thoughtful limnologists try to avoid the
    Typologies & classifications • 83
    terms in precise discourse, using instead quantitative measurements of
    algal abundance and activity, or nutrient concentrations (F. H. Rigler,
    personal communication). These measurements lack the stateliness of an
    all-inclusive term like oligotrophy or eutrophy, but they are more easily
    used in quantitative predictions (Peters 1986) and less easily misunderstood.
    Carlson (1984) has suggested that the terms 'oligotrophy' and
    'eutrophy' be abandoned as non-concepts."

    http://xbiblio.ecologia.edu.mx/bibli...20Simoneta.pdf
    "From a little spark may burst a mighty flame." - Dante
    "The stitch is lost unless the thread is knotted." - Italian proverb

  10. #159
    He simply abides. SD_GR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    CA, US
    Posts
    21,883
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by mycologist View Post
    Here is some light reading that is highly relevant. Unfortunately the author ends up inventing a bunch of new jargon while trying to explain the uselessness of jargon.
    Even the sciences give poor examples.

    Even people staring up got into trouble. Remember the argument over what constitutes a planet?

    Gross anatomy at one point used "homolog" in a different manner than genetics, where a distinction was made between homolog, ortholog, and paralog but only recently enough to make it seem at least partially like a whim of fashion (especially since cladistics got involved).

    Speaking of cladistics, I readily admit I do not (repeat: do NOT) understand what a "species" is.

    Then came the behaviourists. "Anthropophilic" describes organisms that feed on humans, the trouble being that only the person speaking knew what it meant in terms of whether the organism did so preferentially or exclusively. People had been calling Anopheline mosquitoes anthropophilic, yet colonies had been fed on rabbits or blood from non-human species (what is a species?) since the 1950s in labs around the world. "Zoophilic" is a word one would think could cover such feeding behaviour, except the lawyers came along and inserted it into penal codes to describe human behaviour towards animals which they wanted to penalize. So now "zoophilic" means two quite different things to two sets of people that are each quite adamant about the definition.

    What the lawyers should have done instead is penalized the use of Wankels. In a way, some did; I know of an example where the Wankel previously enjoyed a low-tax status due to its comparatively low displacement; however, people wisely intervened and added a multiplier so that a nominally 1.3L Wankel was taxed the same as a 2.0L piston engine.

    Summary:
    I don't like Wankels.
    I don't understand science.
    I don't know from words.
    I don't know what a species is.
    I don't like Wankels.
    Last edited by SD_GR; 02-25-2012 at 12:35 PM.
    WRX Info Links, Courtesy TheJ
    The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. Ernest Hemingway
    I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again - I would. Benjamin Sisko
    DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are the author's alone and are inherently worthless.

  11. #160
    Admiral Ackbar mycologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Late Devonian
    Posts
    12,422
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by SD_GR View Post
    Even the sciences give poor examples.

    Even people staring up got into trouble. Remember the argument over what constitutes a planet?

    Gross anatomy at one point used "homolog" in a different manner than genetics, where a distinction was made between homolog, ortholog, and paralog but only recently enough to make it seem at least partially like a whim of fashion (especially since cladistics got involved).

    Speaking of cladistics, I readily admit I do not (repeat: do NOT) understand what a "species" is.

    Then came the behaviourists. "Anthropophilic" describes organisms that feed on humans, the trouble being that only the person speaking knew what it meant in terms of whether the organism did so preferentially or exclusively. People had been calling Anopheline mosquitoes anthropophilic, yet colonies had been fed on rabbits or blood from non-human species (what is a species?) since the 1950s in labs around the world. "Zoophilic" is a word one would think could cover such feeding behaviour, except the lawyers came along and inserted it into penal codes to describe human behaviour towards animals which they wanted to penalize. So now "zoophilic" means two quite different things to two sets of people that are each quite adamant about the definition.

    What the lawyers should have done instead is penalized the use of Wankels. In a way, some did; I know of an example where the Wankel previously enjoyed a low-tax status due to its comparatively low displacement; however, people wisely intervened and added a multiplier so that a nominally 1.3L Wankel was taxed the same as a 2.0L piston engine.

    Summary:
    I don't like Wankels.
    I don't understand science.
    I don't know from words.
    I don't know what a species is.
    I don't like Wankels.
    Excellent examples.

    I have been trying to convince my non-majors intro class that species are strictly human constructs - they don't actually exist. Even for the simplest cases (i.e. animals) there are problems with the biological species concept. E.g. Homo sapiens and other "species" of extinct humans clearly had fertile offspring.... Regardless of if it is a phylogenetic or other concept being employed there are issues but species are what we say they are. Organisms still are what they are however, and fitting each example you can discover neatly into a description will not happen unambiguously in most groups. Even with DNA barcoding we have to force a limit which will not be appropriate across groups or examples in a group (e.g. 97% match in ITS I & II, 5.8s included). That is just the way it is.

    However, what to do in this case is clearly codified in the rules of nomenclature - if something is described with a given species name (or higher taxonomic designation) and someone comes along later and calls something else that, the first description has precedence on the name. Even if the new type has been deposited, and the description published, it will have to be renamed. The authority who screwed it up will be permanently attached to the mistake and the resultant synonymy.
    "From a little spark may burst a mighty flame." - Dante
    "The stitch is lost unless the thread is knotted." - Italian proverb

  12. #161
    He simply abides. SD_GR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    CA, US
    Posts
    21,883
    I Support ClubWRX
    One great example of a naming mess I think is Basilosaurus, a whale originally classified as some sort of dinosaur or reptile. Setting that aside, as this is an early naming of an admittedly stunning organism, whales themselves present some challenges to the definition of a "species" and their status as the largest animals to have ever lived only makes matters worse -- they are literally huge examples.

    That worfin creature is one thing, but if what I've read is true then blue, sei, and fin whales -- the smallest of which is an animal roughly 20 metres long and weighing over 20 tonnes -- can readily interbreed. So I give up.
    WRX Info Links, Courtesy TheJ
    The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. Ernest Hemingway
    I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again - I would. Benjamin Sisko
    DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are the author's alone and are inherently worthless.

  13. #162
    Admiral Ackbar mycologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Late Devonian
    Posts
    12,422
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by SD_GR View Post
    One great example of a naming mess I think is Basilosaurus, a whale originally classified as some sort of dinosaur or reptile. Setting that aside, as this is an early naming of an admittedly stunning organism, whales themselves present some challenges to the definition of a "species" and their status as the largest animals to have ever lived only makes matters worse -- they are literally huge examples.

    That worfin creature is one thing, but if what I've read is true then blue, sei, and fin whales -- the smallest of which is an animal roughly 20 metres long and weighing over 20 tonnes -- can readily interbreed. So I give up.
    I didn't know the whales could do that - do they make fertile babies or is there another postzygotic reproductive barrier? They could just breed in separate areas or have another behavioral barrier (mate selection) which is effective enough to prevent major gene flow which would obviously eliminate any significant differences between the forms. I know of the Basilosaurus as having the vestigal hip bones (or whatever they are technically) - I suppose that probably threw them a bit of a curve ball.

    If you go back far enough, Linnaeus just defined species as things that were different in some detail. As a creationist himself, placing organisms in natural groupings was not a concern. It is natural that things have progressed considerably since then, and it is good that the system allows for these changes. No one is looking back critically on people who got it wrong based just on morphology and anatomy where DNA has told a different story. Fungi were reworked extensively, and in many cases the story was not what we expected. It causes some consternation with the public when a famous edible is renamed, or an orchid especially (they seem to think their little game of naming varieties is legitimate, it is not). However, these changes reflect broad advancements in how we understand the world around us and the efforts are valued and rewarded professionally.

    Naming something that has already been named is just a mistake though. The example I gave before of using a binomial twice never really happens as it is caught in the publishing stage. There is still a rule for it though.
    "From a little spark may burst a mighty flame." - Dante
    "The stitch is lost unless the thread is knotted." - Italian proverb

  14. #163
    He simply abides. SD_GR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    CA, US
    Posts
    21,883
    I Support ClubWRX
    As far as I can tell (reading) the offspring are fertile.

    I know a tale of a famous orchid biologist naming a new species that was not known for its apparent beauty after his chief colleague and competitor but don't know if it's true.
    WRX Info Links, Courtesy TheJ
    The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. Ernest Hemingway
    I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again - I would. Benjamin Sisko
    DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are the author's alone and are inherently worthless.

  15. #164
    Admiral Ackbar mycologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Late Devonian
    Posts
    12,422
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by SD_GR View Post
    As far as I can tell (reading) the offspring are fertile.

    I know a tale of a famous orchid biologist naming a new species that was not known for its apparent beauty after his chief colleague and competitor but don't know if it's true.
    I know it was done with some phallic stinkhorns. Poor old Ravenel.
    "From a little spark may burst a mighty flame." - Dante
    "The stitch is lost unless the thread is knotted." - Italian proverb

  16. #165
    He simply abides. SD_GR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    CA, US
    Posts
    21,883
    I Support ClubWRX
    For better or worse those are apparently edible, phallic or not. Then again, so are whales.
    WRX Info Links, Courtesy TheJ
    The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. Ernest Hemingway
    I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again - I would. Benjamin Sisko
    DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are the author's alone and are inherently worthless.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •