If Puhn's "How to make your car handle" is practical and straightforward then RCVD is marvellously comprehensive and thorough. Casually flipping through it you might be deterred by the intensity of some of the mathematical passages in this book but this is just the "textbook" side of things. The Millikens also give very clear explanations, diagrams and concise well-structured advice. My one gripe was that the index, while long enough, tends to hide information under unexpected headings, with successive indents snaking from page to page until you quite lose the thread of where you are in the suspension alphabet. Still, it is probably the best currently published work on suspension theory, leavened by some very funny quotations in the chapter headings.

Who better to publish a book about vehicle dynamics than the Society of Automotive Engineers? I was a bit sketchy about the price at first, but I probably would have spent five times as much buying all the different books it would take to get all the information in this one! It only took me a week or two to get it, even though it said something like 3 to 5 weeks. Anyway, highly recommended!

Tired of reading articles by so called 'experts' that have probably never driven a rae car in their lives and wouldn't know the difference between oversteer and understeer if it hit them in the face. This book has all the answers, and that's as simple as I can make it. It has all the math, all the theory, and some of the best stories I have ever read. Everything about this book extrudes excellence, go on and buy it, just don't show it to your friends.

Metz's work is generally considered to be essential reading for the study of film theory. When I first read this particular text, I found myself disagreeing with the psychoanalytic interpretation of the relationship that exists between film (the immaginary signifier) and the spectator. My frustration came from the apparent reduction of the cinema down to psychoanalytic terms and ideas that appear to limit our understanding of this complex artistic medium. If the reader agrees with the Lacanian model of the development of the subject, then these problems will not develop, however it seems that this particular interpretation leaves alot of questions unanswered. Putting these disputes aside, I think that this work is monumental because of Metz's penetrating (no pun)insight into the nature of the signifier. Even if the reader does not agree with his particular method of interpretation, his ideas that come from his deep critical examination make the text a very worthwhile one to read.

Metz attempts to compare the structures of the motion picture with the structure of language. In practice it doesn't always succeed, but this is considered a critical work in the field of film theory.