Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Simula (SMU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noblesse Oblige who wrote (752)	11/7/1997 7:55:00 AM
From: wally	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1671

Hi Noblesse: As long as the "cost" for ITS can be kept in the same range as padding one would expect ITS to win its share of the market (say 10%). Have a good day! PS I hope this weekend is a little more relaxing!!

To: Noblesse Oblige who wrote (752)	11/7/1997 11:32:00 AM
From: Gaffa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1671

N.O. Great movie, more than convincing, thanks a lot there. Have 'they' done similiar tests with rollovers? Or is the pole impact testing enough to cover both cases?

To: Noblesse Oblige who wrote (752)	11/8/1997 8:02:00 AM
From: michael c. dodge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1671

N.O....... A "no brainer". Is that a pun ??? <G> It's very hard to avoid the macabre in this stuff. The crash standards are worse reading than a Stephen King novel. They conjure up horrible images, in dry technical language. Try the 16g seat regs (14CFR 25.562) "Emergency landing dynamic conditions"....."a change in downward vertical velocity of not less than 35 feet per second, with the airplane's longitudinal axis canted downward 30 degrees with respect to the horizontal plane....." (Think of yourself inside that plane. Scary.)