triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The LOS Award (was Re: young, younger, youngest?)

To: Eric Bachman <ebachman@fuse.net>
Subject: Re: The LOS Award (was Re: young, younger, youngest?)
From: Joe Curry <curry@wolfenet.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:16:30 -0800
Cc: Andrew Mace <amace@unix2.nysed.gov>, Triumphs <Triumphs@Autox.Team.Net>
Organization: Curry Enterprises
References: <01bd0eec$81a6b9a0$5f9210d0@11c>

Eric Bachman wrote:

> If we are calculating Length of Suffering, it has to be cumulative.  Two
> British cars are twice the headache as one (You can't include parts cars!)
>
> I like the idea of the calculation, but it needs refining.  The proposed
> equation:
>
> Chronological Age (CA) minus Vehicle Age (VA) plus Years Owned (YO) = LOS
>
> has problems.  Chronological age at time of purchase plus Years Owned will
> always equal the owner's age.  Owner's age minus Vehicle Age doesn't provide
> a true measure of the suffering.  If I purchased a '73 TR6 last year or
> brand new in 1973, the LOS number is the same.  Maybe we should just go on
> total years of ownership.
>
> Any other ideas out there?
>
> Eric Bachman
> 34 Years cumulative suffering
> '73 TR6
> '61 Morgan +4
>
> >Also, how will one factor in multiple car ownership -- those of us with,
> >say, four or more (or twelve or more) Triumphs? Do we take an average,
> >calculated LOS number or must we choose one and only one car on which to
> >base our final figure? Or do those of us with more than one Triumph
> >automatically get placed in a special category?

 I think that the Vehicle age should be "added" to the owner's age not
subtracted.  As we all know, both LBS's and their owners get crankier as we get
older.

Joe Curry


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>