Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it
doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction. That is
largely a function of the materials that are in contact. The total
friction force is the coefficient of friction times the normal force
(weight in this case) clamping the two surfaces together.

Actually, the determining factor is tire pressure. Now, many trucks and
SUVs use higher tire pressures than what is normally found in passenger
cars, but some are the same or lower. The actual weight of the vehicle
isn't that important, assuming adequate brakes (which, when on snow or other
low-friction surfaces, is the case for basically every vehicle), as long as
the tire pressure is sufficiently high.

As with most generalizations, one cannot simply say "all SUVs are bad", no
more than one can say "all passenger cars are good".

As far as I'm concerned, all you on the pro-SUV of this debate just got
baited into one of the classic stupid debates. You might as well be arguing
Ford vs Chevy or high-wing vs low-wing. The people claiming there's no
valid reason for driving an SUV don't have a clue, and the pro-SUV folks are
unlikely to change that. At the same time, anyone defending ALL SUVs in ALL
situations is just as lacking in clues (not that I see much of that, but
still...)

I feel dumb even bothering to post to this topic...but too many posts have
gone by arguing that weight matters, without a single mention of what really
affects the friction between the tire and driving surface: tire pressure.

Pete

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
one of the first rules of argueing on usenet: when
you don't agree on something, demand 'references to
support' whatever you disagree with (and of course don't
bother checking them out)

It's a rule because so many people post so many idiotic things, like
claiming that you can get an SUV for free, or that you can turn a profit
taking advantage of the tax benefit (both statements are simply wrong).

anyway: yes, I do have references, talk to your CPA
if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;

I guess the second rule of "argueing [sic] on usenet" is when you are asked
for references, to tell the person "look it up yourself".

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;

I guess the second rule of "argueing [sic] on usenet" is when you are asked
for references, to tell the person "look it up yourself".

you'll notice that I did provide the reference as requested;
what more do you want?

--Sylvain

TaxSrv wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote:

...
My guess is that making light planes is a losing
proposition for Cessna. From a purely business standpoint,
they would probably me money ahead if they had never
re-entered the light plane market. This is sad, but I'm
guessing true.


It is possible they make money too, as the light singles can share
some of the infrastructure in place to make and market the
profitable lines. However, Cessna is a small part of a big company
(Textron), and their financial statements by segment suggest only
that building Citations is certainly worthwhile even in bad years.
At the unit volume of piston singles, they may make some, or lose
some, and it's possible the Board of Directors cares little one way
or the other if Cessna managers have a rationale for their biz
model. As an inconsequential part of a big picture, I think it
erroneous to compare Cessna decision-making on the singles to that
of competitors who I think are all standalone companies and
nonpublic.

Why? Most companies at least ostensibly exist to make a profit. Except
for the companies chartered specifically as not-for-profit, and even
some of them profit their managers quite nicely. :-)

Matt

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jase,

Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the
plane,
"Cessna" the brand isn't sexy.


Thanks! At last! What, pray, tell, is inherently good about Cessna?

Just about everything. No negatives that I have ever noticed. Their
success speaks for itself.

Let alone
"cool" or "sexy".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Sylvain wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

cost. Do you have a reference that supports this claim?

Any accountants or tax attorneys here who can comment?


one of the first rules of argueing on usenet: when
you don't agree on something, demand 'references to
support' whatever you disagree with (and of course don't
bother checking them out)

anyway: yes, I do have references, talk to your CPA
if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;

no I don't have an URL, you'll have to head for the
library,

OK, I did some research and found that your assertions are quite wrong
as I expected. As a reminder, here is what you wrote:

"in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I remember
correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing the
thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
between a brand new car for free, or to pay like the rest of
us (who are also subsidizing the SUVs), gas milleage doesn't
make much of a difference."

I see at least three errors in your post.

1. The deduction is now $25,000 maximum. It was $100K maximum, but that
was changed last year.

2. You couldn't deduct $100K unless the vehicle cost $100K or more, and
few SUVs cost that much. You made it sound like you could buy a Tahoe
and get a $100K tax deduction.

3. It wasn't a $100K deduction EVERY year it was a one-time deduction
the year you bought the vehicle.

Still a good deal, but not nearly the deal you made it sound.


Matt

ET wrote:
Reading Avwebs latest addition (avweb.com) I'm reading all about how
Cessna is developing (very hush hush) their "cirrus killer", new high
performance 4 place single. They are being very hush hush about the
whole thing, except for one point; the new design will be a high
wing....

The Cessna rumor mill has been going for years. I have heard (from
people inside Cessna who ought to know) that they are working on:

A light twin.

A small turbo-prop single between the Stationair and the Caravan.

The Cirrus killer.

A low wing single.

A new retractable gear single.

I have also heard that all of these rumors a

Bunk. The cost of developing a new airplane far outweighs whatever
profits that there might be in it.

Secret marketing surveys to see what Cessna really wants to build.

Real, but unlikely ever to reach production.

Real, and they are going to produce all these aircraft.

You take your pick.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it
doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction. That is
largely a function of the materials that are in contact. The total
friction force is the coefficient of friction times the normal force
(weight in this case) clamping the two surfaces together.


Actually, the determining factor is tire pressure. Now, many trucks and
SUVs use higher tire pressures than what is normally found in passenger
cars, but some are the same or lower. The actual weight of the vehicle
isn't that important, assuming adequate brakes (which, when on snow or other
low-friction surfaces, is the case for basically every vehicle), as long as
the tire pressure is sufficiently high.

How so?


As with most generalizations, one cannot simply say "all SUVs are bad", no
more than one can say "all passenger cars are good".

As far as I'm concerned, all you on the pro-SUV of this debate just got
baited into one of the classic stupid debates. You might as well be arguing
Ford vs Chevy or high-wing vs low-wing. The people claiming there's no
valid reason for driving an SUV don't have a clue, and the pro-SUV folks are
unlikely to change that. At the same time, anyone defending ALL SUVs in ALL
situations is just as lacking in clues (not that I see much of that, but
still...)

I feel dumb even bothering to post to this topic...but too many posts have
gone by arguing that weight matters, without a single mention of what really
affects the friction between the tire and driving surface: tire pressure.

That is because you aren't correct. Tire pressure only has a
significant impact on very soft surfaces such as sand, where the extra
surface area helps with flotation. In most snow, it makes little
difference.

Matt

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...

one of the first rules of argueing on usenet: when
you don't agree on something, demand 'references to
support' whatever you disagree with (and of course don't
bother checking them out)


It's a rule because so many people post so many idiotic things, like
claiming that you can get an SUV for free, or that you can turn a profit
taking advantage of the tax benefit (both statements are simply wrong).


anyway: yes, I do have references, talk to your CPA
if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;


I guess the second rule of "argueing [sic] on usenet" is when you are asked
for references, to tell the person "look it up yourself".

Especially when you are wrong. :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
I see at least three errors in your post.

I see three errors in your understanding of my post
(you might want to read it more carefully)...

(I didn't say the IRS was going to hand you a 100k
every year for buying a SUV, heck, if that was
true, I'd be rushing to the local dealership :-))

but I do stand corrected on the 100k limit having been
reduced to 25k last year.

--Sylvain