Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:42:24 -0400
Reply-To: Bulley-Hewlett & Associates <gmbulley@BULLEY-HEWLETT.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: Bulley-Hewlett & Associates <gmbulley@BULLEY-HEWLETT.COM>
Subject: Hollow arguements, engine overrun, was: Wankels
Michael - I was wondering about the same! Still think brake-jobs are
cheaper than engine-jobs!!! I've never found a mountain road where my
'85GL would coast beyond 80mph! I can't imagine the rationale behind using
such a little engine as in the VW for braking purposes!
BOB - WA4RRN http://impeachment.org.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not a flame, seriously. Just stretching the wee muscle between my ears;
recalling my polemics classes, and recognizing hollow arguments. This is a
text-book example, so it caught my eye. Don't take offense, Bob & others,
but follow me on this...
While it is true that most brake jobs are cheaper than engine rebuilds,
there three missing, unsupported, (but implied) premises in the argument
above.
First, the writer says that "brake-jobs are cheaper than engine-jobs".
Prima facie, TRUE. However, That implies that one would only need ONE brake
job for the life of the motor; that there would be a one-to-one
relationship between motor jobs to brake jobs. Those who live in San Fran
and the surrounding area can testify, you can easily exceed the cost of a
motor rebuild in brake service if you use your brakes all the time in hilly
terrain.
Second, the writer says he has "never found a mountain road where my '85GL
would coast beyond 80mph". That implies three things: that the writer's
experience is global and complete; that no mountain roads exist that are
beyond the incline the writer has found, (probably not true) -- that the
writer's van, load, and driving style are identical to everyone else's,
(probably not true) -- and that other readers are comfortable bailing down
a mountain at 80 mph with only their brakes to slow themselves down (again,
probably not true).
Finally, the writer says he "can't imagine the rationale behind using such
a little engine as in the VW for braking purposes". This implies that the
writer's imagination has some bearing on what reality is like in the rest
of the world. I personally can't imagine soldiers coming in my house and
cutting my families throats, but that is exactly what has been happening in
Kosovo. However I CAN imagine using my VW motor to slow me down. So for
years, I have done so. No apparent harm.
"...can't imagine the rationale behind using such a little engine as in the
VW for braking purposes". also latently implies that some damage is done
to the motor by using it as a brake. This is debatable. During overrun, the
motor IS turning more revolutions, in reverse thrust, than it would if
idling. However, achieving an objective analysis across the life of all
vehicles of the cumulative effects/costs of using the motor versus the
cumulative effects/cost of using the brakes while descending hills would be
impossible, due to the variety of driving styles, motor maintenance, brake
maintenance and hills encountered. It can't be verified, so it isn't a
valid premise.
Motor braking works, it apparently does little harm, big trucks do it. So
do I. Make your own call.
Thanks again for letting me stretch the philosophy muscle...
G. Matthew Bulley
Principal
Bulley-Hewlett & Associates
Communications for Organizational Development
www.bulley-hewlett.com
(888) 468-4880 toll free
| 
