richard_smith237

Other than the car itself !!... But, yep, operationally, its a good buy. On the maintenance side of things.... The reason I didn't get a Tesla is due to the lack of dealership support. I'm not sure what happens if something goes wrong.. I read that they send engineers out to you, but there can be waiting lists etc. Thus: With Neta - is there any dealership - how does one get the brake pads renewed etc ? Me too... though I have an EV and like them... I would have bought the same car if it were an ICE because I liked the actual car. Some are very 'Anti-EV' and present really daft comments that highlight an irrational negative prejudice. But, others are so gushingly 'Pro-EV' they attract detractors due to their presentation of unwavering bias.

I am not anti-EV. I have consistently acknowledged EV's have major advantages in some attributes. The standard ICE warranty is 5 years and 100,000 km. The warranty holds even if the vehicle has half a dozen owners. Which raises the question of why Neta will only honor a warranty with the original owner. What do they know that we don't? Who apart from you on this thread has heard of Wuling, and what reputation has it established for after-sales service and reliability? Religions always have a problem with heretics and agnostics. Ev's are no exception. If you are not 100% pro-EV 100% of the time, then you are Anti-EV... this binary thinking ignores those with balanced options that are not on the extremes of the opinion spectrum - but get pigeon holed as Anti or Pro by the opposition as a form of gaslighting.

...and you can cut back on telling me what to post. Give it up already - this is not the thread to get into a pishing match... we can keep it on topic and interesting. You can get pedantic in other threads - you are posting good info on this thread, please try and keep it like that if you can.

That concrete wall..... Map Photo looking at the South end of Muan Airfield, and photo looking NNW towards the wall (likely are the air-craft penetrated the wall) Its surprising that the Wall caused so much devastation - punctured the fuel tanks perhaps ?

Yes, I'm speculating that the open thrust reverser seen in the video means that it was, er, open! You can cut back on the defensiveness for this thread... the comment I made was highlight my points were all speculation...

Impossible. The aircraft would immediately turn with thrust reverse in a single engine. Especially with no nose wheel steering. This is all speculation and before someone jumps in... of course I'm guessing (along with everyone else). I would 'guess' that the rudder has a the primary impact on direction at those speeds than the nose-wheel.

I'm sure you ONLY ever comment on any thread involving an accident or incident once official investigations have been concluded...

Thanks - where did you get that info from ?...

How many Aircraft over-run a runway ??? Perhaps there was no space for a longer run off area ???... due to either geography or area's of population... Or, most likely, cost. Air-craft carriers have a 'net' to catch some planes when the the bolter fails.. though thats for light air-craft. The runway length at Muan was 2800m... The longest runway in the UK is Fairford, at 3046m and 4,877 meters at Denver, Colorado in the USA - the length of both runways is to support unique operational needs, including high-altitude performance and military requirements. Thus: 2800m is more than enough - under normal conditions the 737-800 requires 1500m to 1800m of runway, and in extreme icy conditions up to 2100m to 2500m of runway. Even with landing gear failure, reverse thrust should have enabled the aircraft to stop. Thus, the run off appears to be a combination of failures - the perfect storm so to speak.

Which is completely understandable on a forum of laymen, no ?? You can ignore the nonsense comments and only engage the comments you wish to... From my perspective - I'm interested in how the landing gear did not deploy as the 737-800 landing gear can be unlocked from the cabin and manually lowed via-gravity and free-fall into place and locked with a spring-loaded mechanism... (according to other reports).... Thus - were the Air-crew not aware of the failure of the landing gear to deploy until belly / touchdown... or was the air-craft in such a catastrophic condition, this is the only one shot they had at landing... There was also no flaps and no reverse thrust - so the failure was across systems (flaps, landing gear and Engines) and redundancies also non-operational. Then there is the wall, which had the runway been a lot longer, there would be more survivors (20/20 hindsight there)... Could a 'net be used' much like the air-craft carriers ? though weight differences of air-craft and potential maintenance cost vs crash probability make this concept somewhat of a non-starter. These are all my 'laymans' thoughts on the topic and worthy of discussion (IMO), perhaps others can fill in the flaws in my comments with their knowledge and I can learn something.

This is nonsensical. Thats your intelligent counter argument ??... the whole idea of a non-spherical Earth is completely non-sensical, as is every comment you have made attempting to support your flawed idea (not even a theory), which can be scientifically picked apart in an instant by anyone with basic knowledge. Explained again for you (below), this time in greater detail... to counter your simplistic and dumbed down simplification that fails to acknowledge or understand scale. The constellations haven’t significantly changed over thousands of years despite Earth's and the Sun's incredible motions because of the vast distances between Earth and the stars. This is why: Stellar Distances Are Immense: The stars in constellations are incredibly far away, ranging from tens to thousands of light-years. A light-year is about 5.88 trillion miles, meaning that even though Earth, the Sun, and the entire solar system are moving through space, these motions are minuscule compared to the scale of the cosmos. Relative Motion: The constellations appear fixed to us because their relative positions on the celestial sphere change extremely slowly over time. This is due to the fact that the stars themselves are also moving through the galaxy, but their motion, known as proper motion, is so small from our perspective that it takes tens of thousands to millions of years to become noticeable. Human Observation Timeframe: Humanity has only been observing the stars in detail for a few thousand years, a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. Over longer timescales, constellations do change shape, but these changes are imperceptible on the scale of a human lifetime or even recorded history. Earth’s Movements Are Local: The Earth's rotation at ~1,000 mph and its orbit around the Sun at ~66,600 mph are local motions confined to the solar system. They don't significantly alter our line of sight to distant stars. The Sun’s motion around the galaxy at ~450,000 mph is more significant, but the galaxy is vast, so the Sun's position relative to most stars changes only slightly over thousands of years. Precession and Small Shifts: Earth’s axial precession (a slow wobble of its rotation axis) over ~26,000 years causes shifts in which stars are seen at different times of the year, but the constellations themselves remain recognisable. Minor changes in constellations have been recorded, but they are subtle and require precise measurements. In summary, while Earth and the Sun are moving at high speeds, the immense distances to the starts make their apparent positions stable over the relatively short timescale of human history. Over millennia or millions of years, constellations will change, but these changes are gradual and take an extraordinary amount of time to become evident. But.. I'll put it in very simple terms if you still struggle with the above. Think of a plane in the sky: Vast Distances: A high-altitude aircraft looks almost stationary because it's far away, even if it's moving fast. Similarly, stars are so far that their motion appears negligible. Relative Motion: Just as two aircraft at different distances can appear to stay in the same spot relative to each other, stars move so slowly relative to us that we don’t see changes over thousands of years. Short Observation Time: Watching an aircraft for a minute won’t reveal much about its journey. Similarly, a few thousand years of human observation is too short to notice major shifts in constellations. Local Motion: A low-altitude aircraft appears to move fast across the sky because it’s close. Earth and the Sun’s motion are like the low aircraft, they’re significant locally but negligible relative to the stars. Slow Changes: A high aircraft will seem to move slowly across the sky. Over long periods, constellations do change, but like the high plane, the changes are too gradual to notice in the short term.

So far, my beliefs have not been rationally refuted. I recall derogatory language, lots of laughing emojis and lying by omission. I encourage you to write the entire Twain quote. Here's the quote... But, given your writing its clear you are not stupid, which is why I assumed you can't seriously believe this nonsense and are simply playing the roll of a trollish devils advocate in this thread... I still struggle with the idea that an intelligent person could genuinely believe the idea of a non-spherical Earth.

Because that's not what discussion forums are for. We see distressing and puzzling events and it's natural to want to discuss the event. You could say why post here at all - just read the final crash report late next year and in total solitude. Exactly - this is an informal forum designed for discussion... It often astonishes me how often people miss this very point... You can return here with the information in 12 months or more and re-ignite this thread then.

Even without hydraulics it can be manually lowered. Yup the 737-800 landing gear can be unlocked from the cabin and manually lowed via-gravity and free-fall into place and locked with a spring-loaded mechanism... (according to other reports). Thus: were the pilots aware of the landing gear failure before touchdown ? -------- Bringing this on topic - the amount of media attention this gets fuels the discussion regarding airline safety, however, 52 people died on Thailands roads just yesterday (not accounting for those who die 2-3 days later in hospital) - Air-travel, is still so much safer than road travel.

Same here... But I'm starting to wonder if it will ever 'really take off'... The jump from $0.40 to >$2.00 has been great and the lining on what can only be described as a rubbish year, though I still consider myself very lucky compared to others.

I'm surprised by the lack of run-off area... Though, depending on location, I think a lot of airports are like this due to space constraints... But, had that wall at the end of the runway not existed and instead there were a longer run off area, this disaster may not have been so extreme. Of course, airports are not designed expecting 'landing gear failure'...

If someone has an irrational fear, that does not impact statistics and probability.... ... they just 'think' it does... flying is not more unsafe just because you accidentally wee a little bit through fear during take off...

Yup... I see that angle... But see no reason for them to price the room like this other than stubborn greed. There is no reason not to charge the Op 1.5x Monthly rate, other than greed (IMO of course). Less than a Week: Daily rate A week or more: Weekly rate A month or more: Monthly rate (Then of course there are long term rates for 6monthly and yearly) If someone were going to stay 7months, and 16 days.. The idea that they are charged as below is rather preposterous.... - 6monthly rate for 6 months - Monthly rate for 1 month - Weekly rate for 2 weeks - Daily rate for 2 days When instead they pro-rata at the 6 month rate.

You were lucky to be getting that rate . You were getting the discount monthly rate whilst staying weekly . The cheaper monthly rate is when you stay for a whole month . Its a bit cheeky expecting the cheap monthly rate when you aren't staying the full month . He's met the monthly criteria by already staying one month. The additional week is not a separate stay - its an extension of staying the month. The ops point is perfectly valid - this policy does not recognise the fact that someone has already stayed a month and highlights inflexibility and valuing an existing customer. There is no reason at all to charge a daily rate for the time spend 'over the month' other than a human making that decision. It would be simple enough for the property manager to pro-rata the monthly rate has the Op has already stayed a month, and thus welcome a return customer in future - the Policy of the new property manager is short-sighted. No they don't... Thats just the long term rental properties - its something different than monthly rentals.

If someone is scared of something it’s because they think it’s not safe! Irrelevant... irrational fear does not alter safety from a statistical perspective. 20% of Thailands road deaths are in 4 wheeled+ vehicles - thats about 5000 per year. Does the same person who is scared of flying, get scared of driving ? - that covers the irrational angle you may have attempted to counter with.

Come on Brit... fess up... its for you really, no ??? There are concerns with this car regarding safety: In December 2024, the Neta V received a zero-star safety rating from the ASEAN NCAP. But... if the alternative is a motorcycle - its still a lot safer, if you're only driving around town and not going far on highways etc There's not many 'relatively' new cars on the market for 300k baht - you'd be looking at a 2020 Suzuki Swift, 2020 Toyota Yaris, or Altis, or another pickup. There is also the question of charging the Neta V - would you be able to use a Granni charger to meet your 'distance' needs ?

Because it is more important for them to get off the plane first. The question was rhetorical with the objective of highliting the safety of air-travel. If the risk of air-travel was not so 'insignificant' then the higher paying passengers would be placed in the safest area of the air-craft - but that measure is not taken because comfort and convenience by far outweighs the almost Infinitesimally small risk.

We get it... You don't like Barboy, who I agree is very likely Bob Smith... ... but, you are showing an unhealthy interest and trolling his threads more than he trolls the rest of us with his threads and polls. If you don't like the guy, just block him then you won't see his content... Instead I have to block you because of all the rubbish you keep posting in his threads. Just because the author of the thread is Barboy (bob) - its does not automatically mean the thread is trolling, wasteful or not worthy of discussion... Plenty of his threads are, but not all, and thus can be considered in individual merit.

One facet to all of this.. The survivors on the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 were in the tail of the aircraft. Test-Crashes have shown that... Front of the Plane: Passengers in the front of the plane typically experience the highest G-forces during a crash. Studies showed that forces can range from 12 G to over 50 G, depending on the crash's severity. Middle of the Plane: Forces tend to decrease slightly in the middle of the plane, with typical G-forces ranging from 6 G to 20 G. Back of the Plane: Passengers in the rear often experience the lowest G-forces because of the cushioning effect of the fuselage's collapse. Forces here may range from 4 G to 12 G in controlled crash scenarios. So... Why is Business and First Class not at the back of the Plane if it is the safer area ???? (Years ago was on a domestic flight in Kazakhstan - business was at the back of the plane). Answer of course, is that the risk of an accident is so low it is considered insignificant when balanced against convenience for boarding and deplaning and cabin noise.

Air-travel is as safe as rail travel... and both are the safest form of transport - though I very much would not want to take a train from Thailand to the UK. IF you (bob) have thought about this, what are your thoughts when you get in a car when car travel is 62x more dangerous than air travel ??? Global Fatality Rate (per 100 million passenger-kilometers) - Air Travel: ~0.05 (safe globally) - Buses: ~0.07 (EU data) - Rail Travel: ~0.04 (EU data) - Cars: ~3.1 globally (varies by region) - Motorcycles: ~108.9 globally (varies significantly)