Red Evo X at Chaplin's VW
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: Fairwood
Should we say all Advan wheels suck? Here's a jDm Advan RS from a stock BMW that had no abuse according to the owner
Thread for proof
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...ighlight=advan
Would that be fair of me to post that in every single Advan related thread just because I saw a picture online? Of course not.. This is a very isolated incident and is not common.
Tons of Evo's and various other cars track on Rota's all the time. They are JWL/VIA certified and will handle tons of abuse
This season alone there were many teams running Rota Wheels in various forms of racing, including Redline Time Attack here in the US. GST Motorsports (winner of Modified Magazines tuner shootout, countless first place finishes in AWD Unlimited), LIC Motorsports, AFi Turbo, and Turn in Concepts (2009 Redline Time Attack Street AWD National champs) just to name a few...
-Dan
now were off topic...
While were here I dont think his wonderfully posed internet ramble would be considered libel in post 1964 terminology. Just as your counter-point would not be considered libel towards Advan (in encouraging sales away from Advan and towards Rota which you have a clear and direct business arrangement with)
That being said, i'm not arguing for or against any product represented here, simply that his post was not libel.
Definition of libel 2: use of print or pictures to harm someone's reputation. Until 1964, a person could prove that they had been libeled simply by showing that the statements in question were incorrect. In 1964, the Supreme Court decided that public officials had to prove that the statements in question were made with "actual malice"-for the purpose of harming the person's reputation. As a result of the Supreme Court case, Time, Inc. v. Firestone (1976); private individuals only have to prove negligence, rather than "actual malice," on the part of the press.
Definition of libel 3: Defamation of an individual or individuals in a published work, with malice aforethought. In litigation, the falsity of the libelous statements or representations, as well the intention of malice, has to be proved for there to be libel. In addition, financial damages to the parties so libeled must be incurred as a result of the material in question for there to be an assessment of the amount of damages to be awarded to a claimant. This is contrasted to slander, which is defamation through the spoken word.
Libel?! WTF?! Get the fugg outta here! Nothing Raptor typed could be considered libelous or defamation toward a company or its products. Nothing said was specific enough. Give me a break! 
On the defense of Wheel dude...
The picture of the deformed rota WAS from caliper contact and is in no way the fault of Rota wheels. What you need to pay attention to is how the wheel failed. It BENT the wheel...it did not BREAK. Excellently engineered failure mode that prevent fatalities. Too bad the same couldn't be said for Toyota.
Ryan,
You're an accountant NOT a lawyer... but good point. I don't think it had malicious intent.
The picture of the deformed rota WAS from caliper contact and is in no way the fault of Rota wheels. What you need to pay attention to is how the wheel failed. It BENT the wheel...it did not BREAK. Excellently engineered failure mode that prevent fatalities. Too bad the same couldn't be said for Toyota.
Ryan,
You're an accountant NOT a lawyer... but good point. I don't think it had malicious intent.
Last edited by R/TErnie; Nov 19, 2009 at 08:46 PM.
Thought it might be....it was hard to see from the pics, but the logo in the rear window looked like the old skool one and he is one of the few with the Xs who could have moved it from his VIII.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
