Miscellaneous desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 8

which fish is this?

Can somebody look at this image and tell me what fish is this? http://j.imagehost.org/view/0099/muru_fish --117.204.88.187 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I spotted a couple of references to "muru fish" as a type of fish eaten in India, but they all left the scientific name blank. Looie496 (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching a show...

Dinner With the Band and they were making a dish with butternut squash. It was uncooked and they were slicing it and the knives were going through like butter, easily slicing right through with little effort. Meanwhile, every time I've ever made butternut squash it very tough and difficult to cut when raw. So what the hell version of butternut squash was this? It looked exactly like the kind they have in my local supermarket, but it's obviously not, or they did something to it. It wasn't cooked though.--162.84.161.15 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. Even at the restaurant with razor-blade-sharp knives, it takes some work to get through those suckers. Unless they were horrifically overripe, those were cooked. → ROUX ₪ 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ginsu knives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes confusing, but TV shows reflect reality. They have a reality that is all their own - one that communicates. Doubtless the cooking was ancilliary to the story. Thus a struggle to cut a squash would detract from the story. So soften the squash.Froggie34 (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even 'reality' shows aren't above substituting a staged shot when the real shot didn't go as planned. They may have prepared the food like you would expect, complete with awkward wrestling with the squash and then substituted a scene shot afterward with cooked squash or fake squash or whatever.

I can't think of a way to verify that though.

Not having seen the scene in question were they using heavy knives and taking advantage of the blade's momentum? People can get surprising results by swinging heavy blades like they were cleavers. (In fact, sometimes they surprise themselves and need to go to a hospital.)APL (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A properly sharpened knife works MUCH better than a dull one; if you've ever handled a properly maintained chef's knife, it makes a WORLD of difference. It really can cut through really tough food quite amazingly. --Jayron32 02:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US legislation regarding religious hatred ?

Dove World Outreach Center's plans to hold "International Burn a Qu'ran Day" have attracted widespread criticism. However, as far as I can tell from what I have read, the only legal offence that has been discussed in relation to this event is that they will be breaking a local fire prevention ordinance that prohibits the "open burning of books", for which they could be fined. In the UK, anyone who attempted to organise a public burning of the Qu'ran (or of any religious text) would risk being charged under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which says "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". Is there no similar legislation in the US ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See our bit on hate speech in the United States. Basically, the First Amendment means that the answer to your question is "no". If they're not specifically inciting imminent violence (and they're probably not), then the free expression in question is likely protected. — Lomn 13:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in this article; I'm sure many other sites are also addressing the question. — Lomn 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no crime against being an utter fucking moron. General Petraeus also noted that it would probably be harmful to the troops. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, this goes beyond self-contained moronishness (and as a counter-example, it is often illegal not to wear a seat belt -- a clear case of legislating against personal moronity); it has the clear potential to incite violence somewhere -- just not imminently among the people actually at the event. As I understand it, the US is really fairly unusual in leaving this sort of thing legal, so I think it deserves a little more than a "there's no crime in..." brush-off. — Lomn 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the rationale behind free speech is "there is no antiseptic like the light of day", in that not only are good ideas allowed to flourish in an environment of freedom, but the truly bad ideas become rather obviously bad. This event is no exception; it's much better to let the idiots of the world self-identify in this way. It makes it so much easier to keep track of them. --Jayron32 02:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a protest which I think must have actually gone ahead today, Fred Phelps was going to burn a Koran and an American flag - while some have proposed some kind of constitutional amendment to allow prohibition of flag desecration, it also remains legal in the U.S. I think that at least some Americans find it deeply satisfying that people can burn flags and other symbols, because it demonstrates that when other people treat them with reverence, that this is by choice and is a sincere expression of belief. Personally, I think that the comments of American officials were tremendously counterproductive, calling extra media attention to the incident and making it sound as if the government were responsible for the action. I should add that I've just done some surveying on YouTube, and as I mention in a footnote near the end of the 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy article, there are plenty of such videos of Korans burned/peed on/etc. from other countries besides the U.S. (Britain, France, Denmark, Norway, Korea...).

In a general sense, Christians oppose idolatry, and by Christian sensibilities, it could be said that those who say that someone should die or be sent to jail for simply burning some pieces of paper are making an idol out of it. While doubtless someone would get riled up, I doubt that Christians in general would see a Bible burning as a heinous offense. Christianity retains the memory of a day when Jesus was convicted of blasphemy and sent to die on a cross: the son of Man to a mockery of the sacrifice of Isaac in the name of a pitiless censorship law. Wnt (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virgins

What percentage of people in Western Civilization die as virgins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar4u664 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is something that could be measured very well since medically speaking, this is not something you can determine during an autopsy for either gender. Googlemeister (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make a wild assumption here about your age and status and link you to succeedsocially.com.--178.167.133.77 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Apparently about 4% of US adults (ages 20-59) reported that they've never had sex. Presumably the number who die in that condition is similar. Buddy431 (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the page you linked is titled "4% of the Adult Americans Die Virgin!", it reports on a survey which found that 96% of adults questioned indicated that they have had sex at least once. Presumable the raw data would have to be linked to actuarial tables via the respondents' ages to properly estimate what fraction of people die as virgins. The page also claimed, without blinking an eye, "The average number of a lifetime female sexual partner for men was seven, while women had on average four male partners during their lifetime." So who are those men having sex with?

In Estimating Number of Lifetime Sexual Partners: Men and Women Do It Differently - Statistical Data Included, a 1999 paper from The Journal of Sex Research, the authors address the question of why men typically report having an average of two to four times as many opposite sex lifetime sex partners as do women. They say that, contrary to the consensus amongst researchers that this is due to intentional misreporting, it is actually due to differing strategies used in answering the question, with women more likely to count by enumerating partners, a method associated with under counting, and men more likely to give rough estimates, a method associated with over counting. -- ToE^T 16:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the truly perfect pitching performance

How long has a MLB pitcher managed to throw only strikes from the start of the game? I know that a perfect game involves no batters reaching base, but how many innings have had only strikes thrown? Googlemeister (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answering a slightly different, but hopefully still interesting, question, the fewest pitches thrown in a complete game was 58 by Charley Barrett in 1944. Addie Joss threw a complete game in 74 pitches, the lowest pitch count for a perfect game. A great many "strike-only" innings have been thrown, as balls hit into play are counted as strikes. We also have an article on Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out three batters on nine pitches. — Lomn 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, Larsen's perfect game was 97 pitches. I think he only got to 3 balls on a batter or two. (Nowadays, if he had 3 more pitches, he'd have been lifted.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There are no official records kept on pitches as such. Many teams do keep such records nowadays, for evaluation of their pitchers, and you might find some of that info by googling, but it would be anecdotal and recent. The record for strikeouts in a 9-inning game is 20, which has happened several times and I don't think any of them were no-hitters. The record for strikeouts at the start of game (as of 2007) was 9, set in 1884, and the modern record is 8. The overall record for consecutive strikeouts in any span in a game (as of 2007) was 10. You're really not likely to see a pitcher throw nothing but strikes, because if he stays in the strike zone he's going to get hit and eventually relieved. Pitchers mix up the pitch style, speed and placement; a lot of strikeouts are achieved by getting the batter to swing at something that's outside the strike zone, but that doesn't always work and the pitch is likely to be called a "ball". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In question #3 in this column from 1984, Cecil Adams scolded the very idea of trying to rank perfect games by number of pitches or the like. "The number of pitches thrown during a perfect game is no more relevant than the number of brush strokes used to paint the Mona Lisa." Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A stat like that says maybe as much about the ineptitude of the opposition on that day, as the skill of the pitcher. I'm sure if Roger Clemens in his prime were to face a little league team, he could well throw 81 consecutive strikes. However, if a pitcher gets significantly above 100 pitches, he typically starts to tire and becomes more vulnerable. Bert Blyleven ridicules the pitch count thing by saying, "What happens when you get above 100? Do you explode?" Well, too often the answer is yes. Having said that, the question is, What is the highest quantity of pitches thrown in a perfect game (where known - the earliest known is Joss)? Turns out, it's David Wells, at 120, fittingly against the Twins. I suspect Bert had some mixed emotions about that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no instances where an MLB pitcher has gone through more then 1 straight inning throwing nothing but strikes because those stats are not kept? Baseball loves stats, and I figured they would have had this one. A complete game in just 58 pitches is pretty impressive though. Googlemeister (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently no known instance. I'm impressed that anyone even had that stat from 1944. But I have trouble believing it's the definitive record, as for example the shortest game ever pitched was under an hour, and the pitch count had to be very low in that one - I think they had a train to catch and they were literally swinging at everything. Consider that we don't even know the pitch counts for perfect games prior to the one tossed by Joss, and that Retrosheet has play-by-play only for certain years, and no pitch counts (except maybe for perfect games). So this info must not be easy to find. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the box score for that 1944 game: [2] Retrosheet doesn't have the play-by-play yet, and there's nothing there about pitch counts, but that doesn't prove anything. He did throw a 2-hitter and the game only went 75 minutes, so that tells us something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While baseball does track an absurd number of statistics, I think you're looking for significance where there simply may not be any. Here's another list of 3-pitch innings (naturally, all strikes). Note, however, that one could also have two consecutive innings of "just strikes" if you follow a perfect 3-strikeout inning with one that goes single-single-double-homer-single-flyout-doubleplay. Still (potentially) all strikes, but wholly underwhelming -- and as such, not tracked to the degree that one finds it highlighted as a feat of note. — Lomn 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mention it just because it's possible that some discussants may not be aware of it: Any pitch at which the batter swings is a strike, regardless of its location or of whether the batter connects or puts it in play in fair territory. Some of the above comments seemed to me to suggest, though I don't know that that was the intention, that a perfect game consisting of nothing but strikes would necessarily consist of nothing but strikeouts. --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you could have 27 consecutive fly balls to the warning track, or even leaping saves of potential home runs (as with Buehrle's 9th inning) and you would have the minimum possible number of pitches, 27 - all strikes, and every one of them tempting the manager to yank the pitcher, especially if the game was close or scoreless. (Actually, that's pretty close to Bill Veeck's description of Bobo Holloman's no-hitter, although it wasn't a perfect game.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Blyleven might want to talk to Dave Dravecky, and Joel Zumaya, whose arms did explode, pretty much. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I recall the Dravecky footage vividly. Ouch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that had nothing to do with pitch count — that was cancer. Or at least cancer-ish. The Dave Dravecky and desmoid tumor articles appear to contradict one another on that point. Possibilities appear to be: (1) the articles assume different definitions of cancer; (2) the articles assume different definitions of desmoid tumor; (3) one or both of the articles is factually wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Know .....

Is there anyone who knows that why on all the advertisements and also even if we go into and watch showrooms, why time is always set on 10.10 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was asked some months ago. I don't recall if there was a specific answer. But as to why analog clocks are typically set on 10:10 or 8:20, as they have been for countless decades, I've always assumed it was because it made the clocks look symmetrical and attractive, and you could see the hour and minute hands clearly. Now, why they would continue to take that approach for a digital clock, can only be attributed to the "we've always done it that way" mindset. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have a page on 10:08, but it got deleted. Some of it can be found under User:LarryMac/10:08. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I was supposed to work on that. Ooops. --LarryMac | Talk 11:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes has this to say about it. Basically, it looks nice. Matt Deres (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was one of the deletionists' finest hours. There was also a deletion discussion, but this suggests that the deletion discussion has itself been deleted. --Viennese Waltz 06:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why it's red there. Anyway, I found the discussion here. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed URL, that's why. Only just noticed it. Thanks for the link. --Viennese Waltz 10:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue clocks are set to 10:10 because it appears as though the hands are 'smiling', creating a more malleable mindset in the buyer. This carried over to displays of digital clocks via grandfathering. → ROUX ₪ 03:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just make up stuff you think sounds good and post it as fact. Matt Deres (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be a total jerk. Please also don't assume that just because you have no idea what you're talking about, nobody else does either. google answers another site snopes. Perhaps you would like to try again without embarrassing yourself? → ROUX ₪ 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was uncalled for Matt Deres. The resemblance to a smile may not be the only reason why 10:10 is used but it is certainly one of the reasons. --Viennese Waltz 14:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll note that Roux's answer would have been better had he provided the references in the first place -- and Matt Deres had already linked Snopes in his answer above -- and that I don't see a phrase resembling "malleable mindset" on any of the three pages linked. — Lomn 15:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try setting an analoge clock to 20 to 4 and see the sad face that results.Froggie34 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but then you've got the dope-heads giggling. Matt Deres (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? 3:40 isn't the same thing as 4:20... Googlemeister (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that it was? And to be pedantic 20 to 4 does not give an exact angle. I can't be bothered to work it out but about 19 minutes to would give a more central pair of hands. Wonder how long it will be before this tired old subject comes back to haunt us?Froggie34 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Matt Deres said it was. You're right though, it should really be 10:08 rather than 10:10. --Viennese Waltz 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was what? Froggie mentioned pointing the hands to 4:20 and I linked to the article about the dope meme; I'm not sure why Googlemeister brought up 3:40 at all. Perhaps he was picturing the "sad" face and forgot what Froggie had actually written and instead had figured that he probably really meant "twenty to". An analogue clock at 4:20 would have the hands nearly on top of one another. Matt Deres (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No.. Froggie said 20 to 4, not 20 after 4. Also, you gonna retract your nonsense above? → ROUX ₪ 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction and no. Did you read the stuff you linked to? The first site says nothing about the "smile" and the third site is the Snopes article I already linked to, which also says nothing about the smile. The second site mentions the smile and then dismisses it in favour of the more obvious framing of the trademark angle. I'm sorry if I came off as brusque, but we're here to provide references; if you're posting an informed opinion, you need to frame it as such so that the questioner understands what bits are conjecture and which are not - if you'd said "I think..." or "It seems to me like..." then I wouldn't have said anything. Matt Deres (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing about playing the "I'm going to be dishonest about what a reference says and hope that Roux is too lazy to respond" game: you will lose. Quote: " The consensus of opinion (confirmed by Timex) is that clock and watch hands in advertisements are typically set at 10:10 so that the company's logo will be well-displayed. In addition, this position of the hands resembles a smile." Quote: "Manufacturers want you to see their product 'smiling' at you!" Those are both from the first link I provided, which you claim, intriguingly, "says nothing about the "smile""--your words, not mine. Shall I continue? Very well then. Quote: "he answer is probably quite simply that it looks better, aesthetically and practically, as the clock has a 'smile' on its face (not just a marketing gimmick, it really does look better than a 'down turned mouth' at 8.20) and, as others have said, because it keeps the hands clear of signatures and other subsidiary dials". Quote: ""I too have heard the 'smile' theory, which makes some sense from the emotional marketing perspective. Equally likely is the fact that most manufacturer's trademarks are just above the center pipe, and having the hands at 10:10 causes your eye to naturally follow to the trough, thus bringing your view right to the trademark." Which is rather a far cry from 'dismissing' the smile theory, unlike what you claimed. Do you want more? Oh good. Quote: "downward pointing hands are now seen as undesirable because they make the timepiece appear to frown" -- that would be Snopes, which you also claimed had nothing to say about it.

So, be as brusque as you like. But what you don't get to do is be rude when you don't know what you're talking about. Oh, and lying about what sources say? That is just not acceptable anywhere on WP. → ROUX ₪ 18:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions of Temple of Venus Genetrix

I have search all the articles on the Temple of Venus Genetrix in the Forum of Julius Caesar but cannot find the dimensions of the temple. Could you tell me what are the length and width dimensions of the Temple of Venus Genetrix?70.255.80.243 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to page 94 of The architecture of Roman temples: the republic to the middle empire by John W. Stamper: "It measured 23 meters wide by 33 meters long (78 by 112 Roman feet). This excluded the speaker's platform, which was added by Octavian and increased the podium size to 29.50 meters wide by 39 meters long (100 by 132 Roman feet)." Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waving on boats

Is there any reason why people on boats wave to other people on boats? Historical? Psychological? Practical? Thanks! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once watched the white fish fleet leave harbour in Aberdeen Scotland one late Sunday evening a few years ago. It seemed that no boat could leave harbour until the church bells signalled midnight had passed for superstition/religious/custom or luck reasons. And there were literally hundreds of folk there waving off their husbands, brothers, sons, lovers etc., etc., as they left for their perilous 2 weeks at sea, leaving behind them their alternate crew colleagues who would enjoy their 2 week off-duty sojourn. But it also turned out that many of the wives and girlfriends were making sure that their "loved" ones were actually leaving port so that they (the ladies) could relax in the arms of said alternate crew members without fear of said "loved" ones discovering their infidelities. No one seemed to care that everyone knew what was going on but I guess it was a question of what the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't need to grieve over. I am sure there will be many other reasons but this one is my abiding memory. 92.30.199.74 (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe it. How many did you interview on oath? Or are you just repeating what a bloke in the pub told you? 92.15.20.52 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really "good luck" or some kind of fishing season restriction? Wnt (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is totally speculative, but maybe they just wave because they're having a good time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is simply to acknowledge and recognise each others' presence - they are having the same experience of being in a particular place at a particular time, which may become important to share later, for instance if there is an accident or some other unusual occurrence. There is often the same acknowledgement of others when hikers or walkers meet or pass each other in isolated places on land. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed similar things anytime two people meet who are using atypical vehicles (i.e. not cars). Bus drivers, for example, seem to always wave at each other, despite the fact they cross each other's paths very regularly. Motorcycle drivers do it as well. I've always assumed it was a kind of communal cohesion kind of thing, where you're acknowledging your shared experience. It may even be that people are just generally friendly and use even as flimsy an excuse as this to reach out to their "friends they haven't met". Matt Deres (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public transit drivers do this in lieu of "Hey Jo, how's your day going?" that you might find in an office-based workplace. I think people on boats do this to be "Hey, I'm on a boat and it is awesome and I am including you in my awesome world. → ROUX ₪ 03:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Driving Instructors do it too - as one myself I spend half my lessons waving to other Instructors... Tis just a way of aknowledging people in the same situation as yourself I suppose - the same is probably true for boat folk... gazhiley.co.uk 08:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely - I live by the Canal du Midi and tour boats loaded with day trippers pass regularly. Always the occupants wave and smile. It seems to be 'I'm having a great and exciting time please acknowledge and smile back'. Have to say that most residents simply ignore what, for them, is an everyday, routine occurance. Until, perhaps, they find themselves on a tour whilst on their holiday? Incidentally I have not noticed coach passengers waving. They seem almost morose by comparison.Froggie34 (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just plain camaraderie. The feeling that "I'm doing something that I enjoy that a lot of society doesn't, and I see you feel the same way". Dog walkers do the same with a nod, unusual car drivers do it to each other (VW Beetles and Land Rovers I've seen quite a few times). -- WORM MЯOW 10:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're excited because they're on a boat! Also, people with baby carriages always seem to acknowledge each other too, as if having a baby is some kind of secret club. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the interesting replies. I hadn't thought about the phenomenon in other situations (like bus drivers), but those observations help a lot in getting a handle on it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari Post-production Test drive.

I just watched a fascinating Sky Anytime documentary showing the entire manufacture, assembly and post production test-drive of a typical 200,000 Euro sports car at Ferrari's factory and test-circuit in Northern Italy. In closing, the commentator said each car took about 2/3 months of expert construction and a waiting time per customer of 2 years. My question is, each car was shown being put through its paces on Ferrari's own private test track adjacent to the factory, and also on the open road in that region - so would a set of "test" tyres be used during said road tests, or would the customer take delivery of his/her car with it wearing the same tyres used during the road tests? Thanks. 92.30.199.74 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I would venture to guess that new t(y)ires would be put on the car, as the test t(y)ires would have been shredded by the testing. → ROUX ₪ 03:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They probably keep separate 'testing' tyres at the factory/test centre, and then fit different ones when they are transported for delivery, as Roux says, the test tyres would probably too damaged to be used safely. Chevy monte carlo - alt 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]