[www.imdb.com]

You are 100% wrong in your assertion. Mazda not only destroyed the cars, they made a special point of destroying high value easily removable parts from every car.

From the article (each numbered point is a direct copy/paste from the linked WSH piece:

1) Insurers covering Mazda's losses wanted to be sure the company wouldn't resell any cars or parts -- thereby profiting on the side.

2) So every steel-alloy wheel has to be sliced, every battery rendered inoperable, and every tire damaged beyond repair. All CD players must get smashed."

3) Steel-alloy wheels are sliced with high-power saws to make sure they won't be resold. Holes are drilled into every tire.

4) The cars get placed into a crusher that applies 25,000 pounds per square inch of pressure, flattening them into colorful slabs.

5) The cars get placed into a crusher that applies 25,000 pounds per square inch of pressure, flattening them into colorful slabs.

Next stop: Schnitzer Steel, a salvage yard down on the waterfront that's home to an immense metal grinder. "You turn 7,000-horsepower hammers loose on them, and they're eaten in 10 seconds," says Jamie Wilson, Schnitzer's manager. A bemused smile spreads across his face as another load of Mazdas disappears into its maw.

Moments later, metal shards -- most no bigger than an ashtray -- sprinkle onto a mountain of scrap near Schnitzer's dock. There, a freighter prepares to take the scrap back to Asia where it will get recycled.

Sell slushboxes at first to satisfy appearance-hounds that don't care about the transmission. After the initial "I don't care what tranmission it has Gimme-Gimme-Gimme" demand is satisfied, then sell the manual version later on because purists will be willing to wait.

The same thing happens with features like uprated motors, all wheel drive and drop tops options. Sell the more basic model first while demand is most plentiful, then start serving the smaller segments of the market as the big initial demand pulse gets fulfilled with the vanilla-mobiles.

Just a theory, and I'm sure an economist would likely have more purpose specific words to describe this idea.

"If they're not buying what you're selling, start selling what they're buying." - Paraphrased from a Tom Reilly 'Value Added Selling" lesson.

[www.amazon.com]

I keep waiting for the CT AG's office to crack down on ice cream selling scoff laws but so far no redress is coming

[comedian.blogspot.com]

[216.92.151.22]

Johnny Lieberman did one over at TTAC in January.

[www.thetruthaboutcars.com]

154 mph = 413,952 furlongs per fortnight

(Source: [www.google.com] )

Great 190E 2.3-16 article here:

[www.motivemag.com]

A slightly modified, higher-geared version of the car broke twelve speed records by covering 31,000 miles at the Nardo oval in Italy in just eight days, moving at an average of 154 mph.

You're going to need a wider angle lens if you want to keep shooting these boats.

I believe that's "Who's the U-Boat Commander?"

Website for the Blue Jeans Cable [www.bluejeanscable.com]

What good is pulling off a great trick like this is you don't take the time to enjoy it?

And what's the deal with the dour looking security-guard type near the end of the bottles? He seems double non-plussed by the whole thing.

The super low key ending left me feeling as empty as a C flat bottle.

The person, or in this case the vindictive chimp, in charge of the return desk at a Target.

Her NY vanity plate reads "DELAUREN", probably the real reason she bought the car was just so she could have the plate.

You can copy things like this, you just can't call it a Lego brand product.

Too bad you feel comfortable declaring what is legal and what isn't despite your total lack of a clue.

I'm sure your parents are pissed.

I have to admit I didn't know what Bon Ami was (other than "Good Friend" en Francais) and Google turned up this funny bit as the #2 search result:
 

"A clean household is your goal,
and Bon Ami believes that a clean
environment should be everyone's goal."

Professional courtesy, or merely protecting the identity of the CVPI's driver?

[www.cspaaa.com]

At least when in happened in CT, "Authorities admitted some glitches."

Base price: $49,400.00
Price for Equipment: $58,990.00
Total Price:* $108,390.00

Great find! I clicked to flag for CL's "Best Of."

Listen to the commentary of the first episode of "Itty Bitty Liddy," and Troy sounds an awful lot like Donnie Hoyle.

[www.mydamnchannel.com]

Then click the commentary button at the bottom.

Phebco.com website, including a PhebCo People page that has a listing for Donnie Hoyle as "Associate Mgr., Dumping."

Also, Phebco "stuff" at CafePress

It changes the launch speed only a little bit, up to 66 mph, but it decreases the energy contribution from the fall.

Doesn't change impact speed much either, ups the estimate to maybe 80mph impact speed. Does lower the flight time to the correct for 70 foot fall 2.09 seconds mentioned elsewhere.

I wonder what the orientation of the car was on impact? What part hit first?

I was thinking about this on my commute home and it occurred to me I had made one more unstated assumption. I had assumed that the car launched off of the flat edge of the runway, and not first run along the tapering down ground next to the runway before going airborne.

In my haste I'd also forgotten to point out that in a vacuum the flight (fall) time from 85 would be the same (given a zero degree launch angle) regardless of launch speed. Double checking my flight time I come up with 2.35 seconds to fall 85 feet in a vacuum at 1g of acceleration. They would take a tiny bit longer with a zero degree launch angle, given aerodynamic drag.

To land 200 feet away from the end of the runway, 85 feet down, they'd have to be going just about 60 miles per hour when they took off.

I know the car looks a lot worse then a strike at 60 mph, but don't forget it would begin accelerating (downward) as soon as it was airborne, gaining speed (and energy) from gravity.

The car will pick up the energy it gains from the 85 foot fall. In the fall the car and passengers will pick up an additional half a million joules of energy (2000 kg x 9.8 m/s/s x 25.9 m)

Launching at 60mph, the car would have hit the tree at just about 74-76 miles per hour. I computed this using an energy calculation (required velocity for original kinetic energy plus gravitation potential energy), and double checked my math doing a vector sum (~60 mph horizontal component of vector and ~44 mph vertical component) which kicks out around the same amount. (Lots of rounding.)

One more bit on the braking model of car and driver versus bus driver and passengers. Again, assuming brakes that don't fade, stopping exactly at the edge of the runway, hitting the brakes at exactly the same place and braking distance limited by the brakes ability to dissipate heat and not limited by traction, boiling brake fluid, bad aerodynamics or the like, here's some more napkin math.

Driver makes 140 mile solo run and stops fine braking at point x.

Driver loads car up with 600 pounds of friends (I've fattened them up to 150 pounds per American weight.) but this time gets up to 143 miles per hour showing off, brakes at same point x. That's all it would take to sail off edge at around 60 mph.

The killer is kinetic energy. Braking energy grows with the square of velocity, and braking distance is bounded on the bottom by the same function.

What I mean by that is that this is all a best case scenario.

Reality, as shown in this tragedy, is often a lot worse.

Flight time varies a bit shorter if they hit ground then skidded/rolled into trunk, a tiny bit longer if they hit far above ground and then fell down.