開得太快會好飄，點解依家又話堂軚重...:L
請問有無人可以簡單咁講解一下....:handshake 原帖由 dicksonboy 於 2011-4-29 00:14 發表 http://hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
無得咁講，
265B一轉點都耐過68M
即係68M轉既次數會多過265B?
駛唔駛計埋？
講到尾如果真係呢個原因換車
諗到換車既人就係用屁股諗野
換湯唔換藥
治標不治本 ...
原帖由 dicksonboy 於 2011-4-29 00:35 發表 http://hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
我就唔信呢批車軚會重過
無換呔泵既利蘭，牛
我真係好想知以前未有風油軚既時候
D car 佬係咪個個都做到傷殘？
呢個係表面原因黎，實際不如話班卡佬問題。
呢一單同 259D 換走猛獅果一單既理由又係同出一徹 (司機版本理
由係「猛獅唔夠載」(!?)，內部版本既理由係 259D 猛獅「壞車率
高」)，不過我諗再講大家都唔一定需要同意既。 咁壞車多58X同67X就岩用? 原帖由 PS8816 於 2011-4-30 23:19 發表 http://hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
咁壞車多58X同67X就岩用?
Good question! But the "breakdown rate" of the AMN fleet is lower
after the buses moved from 259D to 58X/67X. The funny issue is...
another route, 61X, which shares similar road environment as 259D
and runs on AMN (although not same type), is not known to have a
comparable vehicle breakdown rate as high as route 259D.
The "reason" of the passenger carrying capacity maybe true for 67X
but definitely not true for 58X as given by the frequency and
number of scheduled buses on 58X in contrast to 259D.
BTW kindly avoid traveling out of scope of the discussion of this
thread.
[ 本帖最後由 fokck 於 2011-4-30 23:59 編輯 ] 原帖由 fokck 於 2011-4-30 23:56 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
BTW kindly avoid traveling out of scope of the discussion of this " r, E3 Q8 `. x(
thread.
本板仍接受該等討論
適當時間會考慮分割標題