In reply to Javelin:
It was just a question.
In reply to bravenrace:
I understand that. I am not going to get into another round-robin with you. I explained it all in the email response. If that doesn't clear it up, email me again.
Hopefully your question has been sufficiently answered until Goodyear announces something or some more evidence comes out.
Javelin wonders why people bust on him for how he replies in threads.
33% of the posts in this thread are yours, half of them snarky.
In reply to z31maniac:
Sorry, but I'm not going to drag all of the emails I got from brave into the public. Nothing I've said is intended to be snarky, and I'm sorry if it appears that way, but the context is those emails, and that's where it needs to stay.
I went too far on my original reply to his comment that I perceived as being in poor taste, and I apologized. Sorry if I'm trying to avoid a follow-up drama fest.
Thanks, and have a good day.
Perhaps it would help if you understood hearsay. For instance, the reply you hammered out in anger that initially sparked this extended diatribe from you; also hearsay. Its a third party conveying what was told to them from the party in question. Its hearsay.
Now, does it meet any exceptions? Is it an excited utterance, for instance? Is it a business record kept in the normal course of business? I submit to you, that it is not. Therefore, it is unexcepted hearsay and is therefore inadmissible in a court of law, and, apparently, this forum. Your objections are noted.
andrave wrote: Perhaps it would help if you understood hearsay. For instance, the reply you hammered out in anger that initially sparked this extended diatribe from you; also hearsay. Its a third party conveying what was told to them from the party in question. Its hearsay. Now, does it meet any exceptions? Is it an excited utterance, for instance? Is it a business record kept in the normal course of business? I submit to you, that it is not. Therefore, it is unexcepted hearsay and is therefore inadmissible in a court of law, and, apparently, this forum. Your objections are noted.
Please excuse me for not having 100% faith in everything I read on the internet. I know it's foolish of me.
I think the point Javelin was trying to make is the source - Kiesel - is fairly credible in autocross circles and would be unlikely to post anything negative about one his main sponsers without being damn sure of himself.
The SCCA NEDIV Champion in GTL informed me that he will be on Hoosiers next season as Goodyear has told him no road race tires will be produced. I would take this a s credible source. I know he has been back and forth in discussion with Goodyear at the end of last season because of lack of available tires.
all the above are also hearsay. Please reread the definition. If the question is credibility, well, thats a different issue, and I'd need to run a criminal background check, at minimum.
Any 'utterances' that this might be the beginning of sweeping new revolutions in tire technology being released (carbon nanotubes, superglue, etc..) ?
Seems like if a tire company who advertises performance and racing pedigree is dropping ~85% of their competition tire lineup, there has to be something else going on behind the scenes...
seems unlikely you would want to alienate your most loyal customers (including your sponsors) before releasing an unproven technology?
In reply to andrave:
Loyal Goodyear customers are publically stating the company is constricting their product line. Rather than place the onus on the end-users, why not demand disclosure from Goodyear itself?
It seems apparent that the company has berkelyed-up a simple PR situation or doesn't give a damn about the affected competitors.
Meh, line-out their name and look for alternatives. In the big scheme of things they aren't that important, and whatever competitive issues this may cause also affects your competitors as well. What's that saying, "if this is your biggest problem in life then you're doing well?" Time to move on.
You'll need to log in to post.