Estimate of THE 7:29 GT-Rs power based on Nurburgring straight sections

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I may get frustrated foot but the direct name calling is something I don't do to you. Another nice stoop to an even lower level. Please refrain, it won't help your credibility nor your already poor arguments...

Swamp, when footie finally used a rapier in defense to your attack, you accused him of bad manners, which in context is roughly akin to Simon Cowell accusing the queen of having bad manners. Then when he finally breaks out the broadsword against your bludgeoning (therefore descending nearly to your level), you complain. More typical nonsense from Swamp the Sanctimonious.

Speaking of nonsense, your initial post is very nearly that. You go to a lot of time and trouble (actually a commendable trait of yours), assembling data to "prove" your point, but ignore some basics because of your bias. As a for instance, you postulate a 15 mph headwind for the Vette because it fits your model, but ignore the uphill nature of that section. Of course, it's hard to tell how steep those grades really are from the camera's perspective, but you ignore this area completely. Sloppy.

In addition, once you've fixated on wind, you ignore that possibility for the Nissan. What's up with that? (Yeah, I know you'll say that GM said it was windy, and Nissan said it was perfect, but Jesus, Swamp, perfect can also mean an advantageous tailwind.)

You also ignore the fact that the tests were done on different days. We know from Nissan's public statements that they were running on a perfect day, which I take to mean cool, low humidity and high barometer (not to mention the possibility of favorable winds), but what was it like for the Vette run?

Finally in that first note, you make a bunch of guesses in order to make comparisons. In my opinion, you made good guesses, but there are enough of them that almost any conclusion you care to make is suspect, at best.

I know you honestly view yourself as being dispassionate, but as I've said in the past, you are far from that, and very passionate indeed. I believe your passion overshadows and undercuts your "science", as already described here, but let me offer this additional tidbit.

In the other string on this general topic, someone posted something to the effect that Nissan ran a short lap in order to get this fabulous time, which is so outlandish that anyone with firing neurons would reject it out of hand. I mean, to run a short lap, video that for all the world to see, and declare victory? C'mon. Of course, a few idiots in this string trumpeted "I knew it!" and such, but Swamp, you're not an idiot.

And yet you said:

"I certainly can't tell, nor do I know enough about the track to say I agree with Steve's findings but I almost hope for Nissans sake that he is wrong. Much of the independent analysis is entirely consistent with him being correct though."

Anyone with even basic reasoning on the topic would not have said that, so I rest my case in regard to your bias. You simply cannot be considered credible in this context.

Bruce

PS - And by the way, in these strings, footie has been a lot more credible than you have, with very reasoned responses.

[Just_me]

I dont need videos or calculators to understand that the tested GTR wasn't stock. Obviosly something wasnt correct with the tested GTR.
Bring a production car and independent person to the next GTR test and then we can start discussing.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Just_me

I dont need videos or calculators to understand that the tested GTR wasn't stock. Obviosly something wasnt correct with the tested GTR.
Bring a production car and independent person to the next GTR test and then we can start discussing.

So tell me, every-time a GTR destroys the competition around what ever test track you care to mention. Are they all not stock?

Watch the Autocar video on the Isle of Man, here was a GTR which didn't even have it's limiter removed where at places it will 18mph slower for a lot of the time yet still posted the quickest overall time. I don't think anyone here gets just how good a handling car the GTR is.

Isle of Man video
http://www.autocar.co.uk/VideosWallpapers/Videos.aspx?AR=235168&Page=2&CT=V

This final straight thing that has got swamp so excited is just a miss understanding on his part, like most of the ring it's a difficult place to drive flat out and there is an upper limit to how fast you can go on this straight, the distance/time advantage the ZR1 had over the GTR was made within the first half. This is the reason why the 900hp CXX was only able to post a top speed of 0.8mph over the much less powerful Enzo.

If the ring was solely about outright power then the time BMW took their F1 car around it should have proved to be the quickest lap ever, but it's lap was pitiful. It's a handling course like any other and unless you can carry as much speed as possible through the corners you will not produce a quick time....... period.

[M3 LUST]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I may get frustrated foot but the direct name calling is something I don't do to you. Another nice stoop to an even lower level. Please refrain, it won't help your credibility nor your already poor arguments.

... Because you know that ad hominem attacks are unprofessional.

[swamp2]

Here we go again. I guess I knew I would hear from you at some point. I am not saying this work is all 100% rigorous and 100% irrefutable. It is just another piece of evidence with some reasonable assumptions. Do recall you wanted an hp estimate from me. Would you rather have me post a two word reply "550 hp" or perhaps share some infomation about how I got there? I find my approach superior, again even if not perfect.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Swamp, when footie finally used a rapier in defense to your attack, you accused him of bad manners, which in context is roughly akin to Simon Cowell accusing the queen of having bad manners. Then when he finally breaks out the broadsword against your bludgeoning (therefore descending nearly to your level), you complain. More typical nonsense from Swamp the Sanctimonious.

First of all, if footie is not strong enough nor bright enough to defend himself I don't think holier than thou Bruce needs to come to the rescue. When you have to repeat things 5 times, which I always to when discussing with footie it is damn frustrating. It is not an attack to say he does not read, it is fact. I exhibited frustration and my temper was not even. Nonethess, I never resorted to direct name calling which Mr. Foot did. +1 swamp, -1 foot, -1 bruce.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Speaking of nonsense, your initial post is very nearly that. You go to a lot of time and trouble (actually a commendable trait of yours), assembling data to "prove" your point, but ignore some basics because of your bias. As a for instance, you postulate a 15 mph headwind for the Vette because it fits your model, but ignore the uphill nature of that section. Of course, it's hard to tell how steep those grades really are from the camera's perspective, but you ignore this area completely. Sloppy.

I did not "postulate" a 15 mph head wind. I chose a value for a known event that made a model consistent with observation. This is called model tuning. In general you shouldn't do it but when faced with less than complete information it is 100% acceptable. If you disagree you are wrong.

Do note I did the analysis with an equal TAIL WIND for a GT-R with 530 hp. It didn't make enough difference. Perhaps you missed that in post #21? Apparently. Hmmm maybe they had a 50 mph tail wind... Like everything else, can not be said to be impossible but so remotely likely that we don't need to cover that situation. This is called inductive reasoning.

Road grades in the section in question are ignored. Of course if present they will affect both cars identically! As you know you could simply dial up or down the parasitic losses to fairly closely account for road grade. The great thing about CarTest is that you can include road grade (only as a constant, but that's surely better than nothing). If someone can tell me the grade I would be happy to note the difference it makes. "Sloppy"? Hardly. Exaggeration on your behalf? Yes.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

You also ignore the fact that the tests were done on different days. We know from Nissan's public statements that they were running on a perfect day, which I take to mean cool, low humidity and high barometer (not to mention the possibility of favorable winds), but what was it like for the Vette run?

You know how tough it is to get this information. Yes it is a factor. IMO it is likely not enough to make a huge difference in the outcome. If you or anyone can supply the needed data I can add it to my simulations. Ready, willing and able.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Finally in that first note, you make a bunch of guesses in order to make comparisons. In my opinion, you made good guesses, but there are enough of them that almost any conclusion you care to make is suspect, at best.

OK what is it?

"Speaking of nonsense, your initial post is very nearly that."

OR

" in that first note, you make a bunch of guesses in order to make comparisons. In my opinion, you made good guesses"

Not a lot of consistency here Bruce. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I know you honestly view yourself as being dispassionate, but as I've said in the past, you are far from that, and very passionate indeed. I believe your passion overshadows and undercuts your "science", as already described here, but let me offer this additional tidbit.

Your attempts at "swamp psychology" are beyond amusing. You get each one more and more incorrect each time. Soon you will be saying I hate M3s and that is why I bought one or some such nonsense. Last I checked most scientists and a vast majority of the good ones are not dispassionate, they, quite to the contrary, are very passionate and I am as well. Practicing good science is often making good assumptions when much needed evidence is lacking. Followed with simply always being open to new possibilities, which I am.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

In the other string on this general topic, someone posted something to the effect that Nissan ran a short lap in order to get this fabulous time, which is so outlandish that anyone with firing neurons would reject it out of hand. I mean, to run a short lap, video that for all the world to see, and declare victory? C'mon. Of course, a few idiots in this string trumpeted "I knew it!" and such, but Swamp, you're not an idiot.

And yet you said:

"I certainly can't tell, nor do I know enough about the track to say I agree with Steve's findings but I almost hope for Nissans sake that he is wrong. Much of the independent analysis is entirely consistent with him being correct though."

Anyone with even basic reasoning on the topic would not have said that, so I rest my case in regard to your bias. You simply cannot be considered credible in this context.

Bruce, I am not immune from mistakes. It sounded reasonable after a quick read late at night. I will be the first to admit I have not been to the N'Ring and certainly do not know all of the accepted "standards" for the track start, begin and finish. Funny thing is that there are actually NO STANDARDS. That was a key point in the last link in my OP, which I'd bet you did not bother to read. You should, I'd bet you would really like it. Anyway if it had been true it could have been a piece of evidence that is consistent with an great time for a car that does not seem to have the power to do so. How faulty is this reasoning? Not very. This is simply a bit of ignorance on my behalf and says little to nothing about bias nor credibility on unrelated topics.

Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that a 480 hp or even a 10% under rated GT-R with ~530 hp can keep up with a ZR1 and/or ACR on a straight from around 100->175? Please simply answer yes or no. Of course by saying yes it certainly does not mean you have to agree with this post, this analysis nor my conclusion. Please answer. So much beating around the bush in your diatribe, perhaps you can get to this key issue at some point.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

PS - And by the way, in these strings, footie has been a lot more credible than you have, with very reasoned responses.

Keep it up Mr. Footie cheerleader. He needs all the help he can get from folks like yourself.

[footie]

Toys + Pram = swampie.

Watch the video around 3:30 and see the gap a car with 900hp pulled on one with 490hp (410hp down).

Watch was it they said 'Between 5 and 10 car lengths' and that was with the CXX reaching 186mph and the F430 only 169mph, all that of a starting speed on 31mph. Seriously swamp, at what point will the TNT go off in your head and clear your brain?

If a 900hp car can only pull, say 8 lengths (split the difference) on one with 410hp less from a starting speed 70mph less than the one we are debating are you really expecting to see the equivalent when the two cars are only 100hp apart (530 vs 630).

I think your problem is that when you make a mistake which happens to be pretty often, your pride makes you stick your fingers in your ears and sing a little tune.

P.S.

Just in case you were wondering, the wind was recorded to be the same on both sides of the track when the CXX and F430 raced.

P.S.2

Thank God people at convicted and put to death based on your theories and mathematics.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Here we go again. I guess I knew I would hear from you at some point. I am not saying this work is all 100% rigorous and 100% irrefutable. It is just another piece of evidence with some reasonable assumptions. Do recall you wanted an hp estimate from me. Would you rather have me post a two word reply "550 hp" or perhaps share some infomation about how I got there? I find my approach superior, again even if not perfect.

In general, "550 HP" would've been fine, thank you.

I don't object to your wordiness, since if I did I'd be more guilty than you are as a rule of thumb, but since your bias is clear (in this context), it's not worth a lot to me. As you know, from time to time I even agree with your lines of reasoning, but not on this topic.

Originally Posted by swamp2

First of all, if footie is not strong enough nor bright enough to defend himself I don't think holier than thou Bruce needs to come to the rescue. When you have to repeat things 5 times, which I always to when discussing with footie it is damn frustrating. It is not an attack to say he does not read, it is fact. I exhibited frustration and my temper was not even. Nonethess, I never resorted to direct name calling which Mr. Foot did. +1 swamp, -1 foot, -1 bruce.

OK, near as I can tell, so far that's Swamp +552,411, footie -172,693 and Bruce -1,119,997.

Works for me. Good job.

Actually, I'm only responding to this paragraph because it made me think about the blind guy in the bar who announces:

"Hey, I just heard this really great blonde joke!"

Whereupon the lady bartender says, "Mister, I'm a blonde, and I work out and run five miles every day. There are two blondes sitting at the bar right here, and they're both weightlifters. Furthermore, the two blondes sitting at the table behind you are both cops. Are you sure you want to tell that blonde joke?"

And the guy says, "Well, not if I'm going to have to explain it five times."

Love bar jokes.

Oh, was that off topic? Sorry.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Bruce, I am not immune from mistakes. It sounded reasonable after a quick read late at night. I will be the first to admit I have not been to the N'Ring and certainly do not know all of the accepted "standards" for the track start, begin and finish. Funny thing is that there are actually NO STANDARDS. That was a key point in the last link in my OP, which I'd bet you did not bother to read. You should, I'd bet you would really like it. Anyway if it had been true it could have been a piece of evidence that is consistent with an great time for a car that does not seem to have the power to do so. How faulty is this reasoning? Not very. This is simply a bit of ignorance on my behalf and says little to nothing about bias nor credibility on unrelated topics.

Swamp, ignorance has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's just basic adult reasoning. To believe that anybody would stand up in front of the world and declare declare something as fact, and supply video with that statement that proves it's a lie is simply beyond the pale. Your willingness to believe that is very powerful proof of your bias.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that a 480 hp or even a 10% under rated GT-R with ~530 hp can keep up with a ZR1 and/or ACR on a straight from around 100->175? Please simply answer yes or no. Of course by saying yes it certainly does not mean you have to agree with this post, this analysis nor my conclusion. Please answer. So much beating around the bush in your diatribe, perhaps you can get to this key issue at some point.

ACR? Yes. ZR1? Almost certainly no. Not even with the shifting advantage.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Keep it up Mr. Footie cheerleader. He needs all the help he can get from folks like yourself.

Cheerleader? I've been at odds with footie before, but in this context, I suppose yes, or at least I believe he has been a paragon of good, informed sense on the topic.

Swamp, some general observations:

Although I didn't read anything in this string for openers, the whole thing hung on long enough that my curiosity was piqued enough to finally plow through it. I admit to not reading a fair bit of your stuff, but I don't actually mean that as an indictment. It's just that our styles are so different that it's sometimes an effort.

I in fact did read post 21 when I broke down and finally read the string. Actually, that's part of my general point. You didn't bother with this initially, but when challenged, did so (to your credit, actually). The result was that a 10% underrated GT-R with a 15 mph tailwind could stay with a ZR-1 when that car was facing a 15 mph headwind.

We're far from being the same person, but for me, once I had seized on the idea of prevailing winds, running that sort of simulation for openers would've been absolutely the thing to do, and getting that result, I would've considered the entire exercise to be on a moot point, and would've abandoned ship.

Lastly on this point, all this time and effort resulting in an estimation of 530 to 560 HP, with a best guess estimate of 550?

With current run-rate U.S. spec cars tending to show dyno and quarter-mile performance indicating something close to 530 HP, why bother, especially with all the variable unknowns?

Finally, a tip. When you're arguing a point with someone who disagrees, it simply won't do to reiterate the point five times. Chances are very good that the other person got the concept the first time. So unless you'd rather argue than convince, you need to change direction, come at it from a different angle, instead of stooping to vituperation.

Bruce

PS - My opinion is that a variable gradient is important, and unlike a modeled constant breeze, it won't necessarily affect each car the same way. Depending on where each car is on its power curve on a varying grade, it will over perform or under perform against another car at that point. The speed at the end of the modeled/observed section should be largely unchanged, but the ET could easily be affected.

With the actual gradients unknown, and no way to tell where each car is on it's power curve at any given point, it's just another indication (for me) to throw in the towel, rather than continue an effort that is unavoidably short on actual data, and long on guesses - no matter their quality.

[Steved]

Originally Posted by Just_me

Bring a production car and independent person to the next GTR test and then we can start discussing.

And that's precisely our plan. I won't say much more, since plans have a habit of backfiring, especially the weather conditions at Nurburg this time of year, but we'll see if we can re-create this lap using a standard GT-R and standard GT2, then see what we discover.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Steved

And that's precisely our plan. I won't say much more, since plans have a habit of backfiring, especially the weather conditions at Nurburg this time of year, but we'll see if we can re-create this lap using a standard GT-R and standard GT2, then see what we discover.

You guys are as good as Toshio Suzuki?

[footie]

Originally Posted by Steved

And that's precisely our plan. I won't say much more, since plans have a habit of backfiring, especially the weather conditions at Nurburg this time of year, but we'll see if we can re-create this lap using a standard GT-R and standard GT2, then see what we discover.

This is something I am looking forward to with interest. Not that it will confirm or deny the GTR lap time of 7:29, but it will let us see if Porsche were not very truthful with their comparisons.

I only wished you could include the other contenders in this debate, the ACR, 997Turbo and ZR1.

[Steved]

Originally Posted by lucid

You guys are as good as Toshio Suzuki?

That's the point though isn't it. We need to see what is 'really' possible with unfettered cars driven by drivers with no axe to grind.

Still talented drivers though, Richard came 3rd in class in this years Pikes Peak hillclimb and both him and Chris have been factor or private sportscar drivers for Aston, Nissan and Porsche.

We should also be joined by a certain P Bennett who set the outright lap record of the 'ring at one time in a Radical SR3..

As I said, there are so many factors that could intervene to scupper our plans, so we'll see what we can do to clear this matter up once and for all.

p.s. we can't get hold of a ZR1 in Europe yet, although we drove one at launch.

[ruff]

So Swamp,

When are you going to stop beating a dead horse, break down and pet Godzilla? Yes, he does have a wicked bite, but your tough enough, and you of all people can survive it.

Don't you think the GT-R would be a fine addition to your stable? In words, statistical models, simulations, and even in real world driving, you could smoke almost every production cars ever built and most importantly, arguments refuting you.

I am glad to see you keep up the good fight for science sake. On the down side, driving pleasure is impossible to quantify, just like like love, art, and the art of war. As we can all attest, even hard performance numbers can also be very difficult to quantify, given the oh so many variables at a given point in time.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Steved

That's the point though isn't it. We need to see what is 'really' possible with unfettered cars driven by drivers with no axe to grind.

Still talented drivers though, Richard came 3rd in class in this years Pikes Peak hillclimb and both him and Chris have been factor or private sportscar drivers for Aston, Nissan and Porsche.

It makes me laugh when people on web sites question the abilities of magazine test drivers, as if you don't have experience or something.

Originally Posted by Steved

We should also be joined by a certain P Bennett who set the outright lap record of the 'ring at one time in a Radical SR3..

Phil is a very talented young man, his opinions and skills sure pull the best out of both cars as only a professional race driver can.

Originally Posted by Steved

As I said, there are so many factors that could intervene to scupper our plans, so we'll see what we can do to clear this matter up once and for all.

p.s. we can't get hold of a ZR1 in Europe yet, although we drove one at launch.

It's a shome no ZR1, but what's the chance of a 997turbo being present?

[M3 LUST]

Originally Posted by Steved

Still talented drivers though, Richard came 3rd in class in this years Pikes Peak hillclimb and both him and Chris have been factor or private sportscar drivers for Aston, Nissan and Porsche.

We should also be joined by a certain P Bennett who set the outright lap record of the 'ring at one time in a Radical SR3.

Evo mag, right?

[footie]

Originally Posted by M3 LUST

Evo mag, right?

All ex-EVO and ex-Autocar editors.

[M3 LUST]

Originally Posted by footie

All ex-EVO and ex-Autocar editors.

What are you implying?

[footie]

Originally Posted by M3 LUST

What are you implying?

Not impling anything, only stating who make up the team of Driver Republic.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Steved

That's the point though isn't it. We need to see what is 'really' possible with unfettered cars driven by drivers with no axe to grind.

Still talented drivers though, Richard came 3rd in class in this years Pikes Peak hillclimb and both him and Chris have been factor or private sportscar drivers for Aston, Nissan and Porsche.

We should also be joined by a certain P Bennett who set the outright lap record of the 'ring at one time in a Radical SR3..

As I said, there are so many factors that could intervene to scupper our plans, so we'll see what we can do to clear this matter up once and for all.

p.s. we can't get hold of a ZR1 in Europe yet, although we drove one at launch.

It's all good. It's just that you wrote, "we'll see if we can re-create this lap using a standard GT-R and standard GT2" and I'm saying you'll never be able to recreate that lap unless you are as fast as Suzuki (assuming the commercial spec car has the same hp as the one Suzuki drove). Anyway, I'm just pulling your leg. One thing I am sure of in the middle of all this debating about power ratings and all is that you guys are faster drivers than I am and that you are qualified to do such a comparison (I mean, come on, Chris took his brand new M3 to the Ring on a wet day and drove it hard to report and got away with it; how cool is that?)! Keep up the good work, and I'm looking forward to the results.

P.S. One thing I don't understand is that you guys reported in Driver's Republic that you cold go WOT in 2nd with the M3 coming out of corners and traction was fine. That sure has not been my experience at the track. No matter how gently I put the power down, I have to be extra careful in 2nd, or the rear end gets all loose.

[M3 LUST]

Originally Posted by lucid

It's all good. It's just that you wrote, "we'll see if we can re-create this lap using a standard GT-R and standard GT2" and I'm saying you'll never be able to recreate that lap unless you are as fast as Suzuki (assuming the commercial spec car has the same hp as the one Suzuki drove). Anyway, I'm just pulling your leg. One thing I am sure of in the middle of all this debating about power ratings and all is that you guys are faster drivers than I am and that you are qualified to do such a comparison...

It WILL allow us to get closer to a ceteris paribus comparison.

[footie]

Originally Posted by lucid

One thing I am sure of in the middle of all this debating about power ratings and all is that you guys are faster drivers than I am and that you are qualified to do such a comparison (I mean, come on, Chris took his brand new M3 to the Ring on a wet day and drove it hard to report and got away with it; how cool is that?)! Keep up the good work, and I'm looking forward to the results.

And held a conversation to a camera along the way which takes your concentration away from the job in hand. I always admired Chris's reviews because you can see he cuts through all the BS and tells it as it is, warts and all.

The thing I was be looks for/expecting is for the two cars to be pretty close in lap time, that way it should prove Porsche being bias and show it to be possible for the GTR's time to be plausible.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ruff

So Swamp,

When are you going to stop beating a dead horse, break down and pet Godzilla? Yes, he does have a wicked bite, but your tough enough, and you of all people can survive it.

Don't you think the GT-R would be a fine addition to your stable? In words, statistical models, simulations, and even in real world driving, you could smoke almost every production cars ever built and most importantly, arguments refuting you.

I am glad to see you keep up the good fight for science sake. On the down side, driving pleasure is impossible to quantify, just like like love, art, and the art of war. As we can all attest, even hard performance numbers can also be very difficult to quantify, given the oh so many variables at a given point in time.

Thanks for a well written and thought out comment.

I'm not sure how many times I have to wax poetic about how impressed I am with the car and how much I really apprecaite what appear to be bleeding edge AWD, traction/vehicle dynamics controls, DCT, software, etc. As well even if the performance numbers are anywhere close to the best ones the car represents an amazing bang for the buck, which is always very high on my list of important things. I am not sure what the premiums on prices are running right now but the price to performance is slightly marred by those stiff premiums.

On top of that I would love to drive and/or own one but I would never go to the latter with my own money. The car doesn't speak to me enough on the aesthetics side, which is key. I think the point about how easy the car is to drive fast is really impressive as well. Many (esp. some of the P car guys) bag on this ("yeah what fun - let the computers and the robots do the driving for you"). I don't buy this argument. Making a car easy to drive this fast is an achievement and it is specifically what Nissan wanted. Sure this is a fine line as we have discussed much here in the forum. Take this goal too far and you do end up feeling possibly numb, cheated or like you are driving in PS3...

So I won't give up my opinions and efforts and conclusions based on the available data. I think Nissan have and are cheating and it seems they have a history of doing so. Some will surely find such efforts and posts boring, some simply won't understand a word of it and others will babble indefinitely against me. Lastly some add some constructive criticism, good food for thought and even an occasional compliment for my efforts. We are all different and for lack of a better expression that is what makes the world go round.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

...So I won't give up my opinions and efforts and conclusions based on the available data. I think Nissan have and are cheating and it seems they have a history of doing so. Some will surely find such efforts and posts boring, some simply won't understand a word of it and others will babble indefinitely against me. Lastly some add some constructive criticism, good food for thought and even an occasional compliment for my efforts. We are all different and for lack of a better expression that is what makes the world go round.

"Pancho! My horse!"

"More misadventures, my lord?"

"And adventures, too..."