Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Dubya says "Hydrogen is the future."

P

(PeteCresswell)

Jan 1, 1970
0
Per Solar Flare:
You need to think about impact studies. If you were tight against the
structure of the car you would have less impact. Your body will stop
when the car begins to not after the car has completely stopped and
you hit the structure.

But a tall person is not tight against the structure. Only the head and knees
are tight against the structure. The body slams upward and forward against the
seat belts - no matter how tight or correctly functioning the belts are. The
chest compresses and the lap belt will never be 100% tight - the retraction
springs just aren't that strong.

Body moves. Head stays in the same place. What has to give?
 
W

William P.N. Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Anthony Matonak said:
Merging into 65+ mph traffic on a freeway can be very dangerous
if your car can't accelerate fast enough.

Oh, come on, my diesel Rabbit did 0-60 in 30 seconds, but I never had
a problem with merging or speed (got more than one ticket). It also
got 50MPG average.
 
R

Ron Purvis

Jan 1, 1970
0
William P.N. Smith said:
Oh, come on, my diesel Rabbit did 0-60 in 30 seconds, but I never had
a problem with merging or speed (got more than one ticket). It also
got 50MPG average.

I used to have a diesel bunny and I had problems getting on some of the
freeways. It definitely did not have as much acceleration as any other car I
have ever owned.
 
W

William P.N. Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
(PeteCresswell) said:
Somebody (Friedman in the New Yorker?) suggested that the best thing for America
might be a very large gasoline tax - something like three dollars per gallon,
just in taxes.

Gee, wish I'd said something like that. 8*|
 
B

Bill in Schenectady

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jens Kr. Kirkebø said:
can get sued for most anyhing. Here in Europe even small cars as VW
Golfs are rated for towing at least 2000 punds which means that people
use trailers behind their cars when they need to haul large amounts of
stuff, instead of driving a car large enough to do it. Car makers in
the US don't seem to rate anything less than a large pickup or SUV for
towing, defeating the purpose.

Next weekend I'm haulig a 2000 pound trailer full of free firewood up
to my cabin in the norwegian mountains. I'm towing it behold a VW
Touran 2.0TDI and will probably get a mileage somewhere just below
40mpg doing it compared to about 50mpg without the trailer. Instead of
always driving a 25mpg pickup.

I'm not certain if liability is the reason why cars in the U.S. aren't rated
for 2000 pound towing ability. (By the way, thanks for translating to U.S.
measures, though I think we could have handled kilograms.) Our most recent
auto is an '03 Suburu Legacy wagon. It is rated to tow 1,000 pounds, but I
always thought that had to do with the standard transmission. However, I
could be wrong.

I wonder if car companies in the U.S. (including the foreign companies that
sell here) rate the cars only for low weight towing as another effort to
sell more profitable trucks and SUVs.
 
B

Bill in Schenectady

Jan 1, 1970
0
Derek Broughton said:
Citations! I don't know a single person driving an SUV who _needs_ it. I
know _one_ who had a marginal excuse for it. I do know a fair number of
pickup owners who rely on them - but none of them actually drive the truck
when they _don't_ need it (as opposed to the folks who own a truck they
don't need - and drive it all the time). I can think of exactly two
people
who could really use a minivan - and they don't have them.

I'm sure you're absolutely correct that:


However, the number of people who drive a big vehicle and _rarely_ use its
capacity, seems to me to be very high.

Out of curiosity, I took a close look at cars, trucks and SUVs on the road
during this morning's commute. It does seem as though the percentage of
SUVs has dropped since the recent rise in gas prices. I suppose that many
people with both and SUV and a car in the family are driving the cars for
whichever commute is the longer.

Of the SUV's that I saw, only one had a passenger.

Almost all of them were quite clean in spite of the recent rainy spell,
indicating garage storage and very little heavy work.

As for the cargo that they carried, granted I can't see inside the cargo
compartment but you can tell when a vehicle is really loaded.

What cargo I could see consisted of:

A donut
A cell phone
A very fat woman
A cigarette
A very bushy moustache

That was about it.
 
A

Abraham Evangelista

Jan 1, 1970
0
Per Solar Flare:

I'm not too sure what kind of point I'm trying to make, but here is an
observation from experience.

I live in Paoli, Pennsylvania; twenty-some miles outside of Philadelphia right
on a railroad they call "The Main Line".

To be fair, we're really in a quite unique situation here in the
Philly area. If you examine most other major metro areas here in the
U.S., light rail is very much an endangered species. :-(

(Which station are you near? One of the regionals?)
When we were shopping for our house, I took a compass and drew 10-minute walking
distance circles around all the stops on The Main Line and we chose our house to
be within one of them.

I took the train to and from work for a number of years.

Tried it for classes, I almost lasted a full year before deciding
that I didn't want to be caught waiting for an hour for a train to
show up at 10:00pm if my professors decided to run a little late with
lectures.
But, in the end, I reverted to getting to work via motor vehicles/highway -
mostly in a van pool.

Driving - especially in the van pool - turned out to be much of what public
transportation was touted to be:

Only if you keep a clean car. :) I pratically live out of mine these
days, so it's only marginally cleaner than the R3. But at least it's
*MY* clutter.
- Quieter
- More comfortable

Agreed to both. The comfort on rails here wasn't bad, and I did
enjoy being able to *DO* stuff on the train instead of having to
concentrate on staying alive on 95. But a better car stereo, and a
sun roof go a long way towards making the commute more pleasant.
- Faster
- Cheaper

These are the two that got me. Until the recent gas hike, it was
actually cheaper to drive into school and pay for parking than it was
to get the rail pass. Now that gas is at the $3 mark, it's marginally
less expensive to take the train.
- Vastly more dependable

This is SEPTA we're talking about. A blind monkey driving a one
wheeled cart behind a three legged donkey would be more dependable.
:)
- (maybe) Safer since a fellow worker had a loaded pistol put to his head at the
El Station in front of where we work (Elevated rail ===> Railroad station)

And *THIS* would be why I drive to school when I have night classes.

You're fortunate enough to have a car pool. There aren't really any
other students from my university who live near here. Truthfully, the
daily commute to and from school probably eats up 2/3 of my weekly
fuel usage, but I'm loath to trade in my safety or ability to change
my schedule, even at the cost of more gasoline.
 
N

Nick Hull

Jan 1, 1970
0
William P.N. Smith said:
I'd love to see a buck a gallon a year increase in gasoline taxes,
then we'll see the end of the Suburban Assault Vehicle and the ready
availabilty of 50MPG cars. Heck, if Europe can do it, maybe the US
can too.

In this country the people are supposed to tell the politicians what to
do, not the other way around.
 
W

William P.N. Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nick Hull said:
In this country the people are supposed to tell the politicians what to
do, not the other way around.

Yeah, and one of the first things I taught my kids to say was "I want
my instant gratification Right Now!". However, it's up to me to see
that they get a good education, learn to get along with others, know
the value of a dollar, and have some future potential. Burning up all
the fossil fuels and leaving them to deal with the crisis isn't really
on my list...

I'm not saying it's easy, and I'm not saying it's cheap, and I'm not
saying the politicians have the backbone to deal with it, I'm just
saying that there's an energy crisis coming, and an intelligent,
planned, funded approach to dealing with it would have a far better
outcome than waiting till only the rich can afford gasoline, and then
dealing with the "unanticipated (inter)national crisis". Hence my
suggestion to increase the gas tax by a buck a year and use the funds
for energy research.

NASA has publicly stated that we couldn't put a man on the moon within
10 years, even with unlimited funding, and I bet we couldn't build the
interstate highway system again, because we're spending all our money
on having our instant gratification Right Now.
 
P

(PeteCresswell)

Jan 1, 1970
0
Per Solar Flare:
Well yes and no.

The retraction springs do not come into play upon impact. The
mechanism locks. By your own reply you implied the tighter the better.

In my vehicle the tightness of the belts is determined by the retraction
springs. Once the vehicle hits something, the belts are locked.. but they are
locked at whatever tension they were at impact.

20 years ago, before retraction springs and automatic locking mechanisms,
appeared belts could be tightened by the user. AFIK, this is not the case in
today's vehicles.
 
P

(PeteCresswell)

Jan 1, 1970
0
Per Abraham Evangelista:
Agreed to both. The comfort on rails here wasn't bad, and I did
enjoy being able to *DO* stuff on the train instead of having to
concentrate on staying alive on 95.

I think the opportunity to do something while traveling is the primary benefit
of mass transit for most people I know.

To the extent it's compromised by some yo-yo yaking into a cell phone right next
to your ear or having to stand all the way... or having a bunch of school kids
screaming their lungs out it becomes diminished.

Off-hours the Main Line isn't half bad.

Going down to DC, I actually enjoy the trip when I take the train - as opposed
to dodging semis on 95...

OTOH, being able to do something else is also available in a van or car pool
provided the occupants agree to yak it up too much....
 
S

surfnturf

Jan 1, 1970
0
Used to drive 2WD with positraction. Better than 1WD, but cannot touch AWD
or 4WD for pushing through deep snow uphill.

FWD is better than RWD, used to have an R-8 Renault which really was quite
amazing for traction. But still not in the same league as AWD.

surfnturf
 
M

Mary Fisher

Jan 1, 1970
0
William P.N. Smith said:
Yeah, and one of the first things I taught my kids to say was "I want
my instant gratification Right Now!". However, it's up to me to see
that they get a good education, learn to get along with others, know
the value of a dollar, and have some future potential. Burning up all
the fossil fuels and leaving them to deal with the crisis isn't really
on my list...

I'm not saying it's easy, and I'm not saying it's cheap, and I'm not
saying the politicians have the backbone to deal with it, I'm just
saying that there's an energy crisis coming, and an intelligent,
planned, funded approach to dealing with it would have a far better
outcome than waiting till only the rich can afford gasoline, and then
dealing with the "unanticipated (inter)national crisis". Hence my
suggestion to increase the gas tax by a buck a year and use the funds
for energy research.

NASA has publicly stated that we couldn't put a man on the moon within
10 years, even with unlimited funding, and I bet we couldn't build the
interstate highway system again, because we're spending all our money
on having our instant gratification Right Now.

Well said, William.

Mary
 
M

Mary Fisher

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ulysses said:
Last year there was this guy in a FWD minivan that was the only one to
make
it through the deep mud without 4WD (and some of those didn't make it).
He
was absolutely convinced that his minivan was completely adequate for his
purposes. Well, maybe he was just a much better driver than most but I
was
impressed and it gave me a very good opinion of FWD.

FWD is good on sand, snow, mud etc. but not going up a very steep hill with
a caravan on the back.

Trust me ...

Mary
 
P

(PeteCresswell)

Jan 1, 1970
0
Per Ulysses:
I have very little experience driving in snow. I do, however, suspect that
it makes a difference if there is pavement down below the snow and not
frozen dirt. Most of my adverse condition driving is in mud and loose dirt.

It does for me. It also makes a diff what the condition of the packed snow
underneath is: rutted or smooth.

During the (very) occasional heavy snows (24"+) we get around here I like to
take my vehicle out and just drive around seeing how far/long I can make it in
2WD. Generally, I can go without 4WD until I make some bonehead move like
turning uphill at low speed in severely-rutted snow.

In deep snow that has a rutted base underneath it, I think the vehicle handles
better in 4WD. Doesn't "go" any better... It's more having the vehicle go
where you want it to go without wandering in the ruts.

For me, the primary benefit of 4WD is the reduced stress when I'm stuck behind
some guy that seems determined to get himself stuck. With 4WD, when he finally
does I can just stop, drop it in 4WD, and slowly ease around him. With 2WD,
I'd probably be just as stuck as he was once I lost my momentum - say - on a
hill.
 
S

stu

Jan 1, 1970
0
(PeteCresswell) said:
Per Solar Flare:

In my vehicle the tightness of the belts is determined by the retraction
springs. Once the vehicle hits something, the belts are locked.. but they are
locked at whatever tension they were at impact.

20 years ago, before retraction springs and automatic locking mechanisms,
appeared belts could be tightened by the user. AFIK, this is not the case in
today's vehicles.

lots of cars have Pyrotechnic front seat belt pretensioners now(atleast in
australia they do)
 
J

John Gilmer

Jan 1, 1970
0
I used to have a diesel bunny and I had problems getting on some of the
freeways. It definitely did not have as much acceleration as any other car I
have ever owned.

I the past I have had seriously underpowered cars and today I seldom use the
"reserve" power I have to merge (but I do use it to pass on 2 lane roads.)

I am not ashamed to come to a near stop well back of the merge point and
wait for a gap. With a little experience you can be up to speed at the
merge point just when the gap comes by. A lot of drivers just worry about
coming up to speed and then play "chicken" when the merge lane goes away.
 
R

Ron Purvis

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Gilmer said:
I the past I have had seriously underpowered cars and today I seldom use
the
"reserve" power I have to merge (but I do use it to pass on 2 lane roads.)

I am not ashamed to come to a near stop well back of the merge point and
wait for a gap. With a little experience you can be up to speed at the
merge point just when the gap comes by. A lot of drivers just worry
about
coming up to speed and then play "chicken" when the merge lane goes away.
For many places stopping and waiting is just not feasible. This would cause
a traffic jam that would back up side roads.
 
C

Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hydrogen is the reactor.

Where does the hydrogen come from? And whence cometh the oxygen to burn in?
We will eventually suffocate from low oxygen.

There is no way out except thermonuclear fusion and that is like living next
to a domestic hydrogen bomb.

Can anyone work out the mass of oxygen in the atmosphere at present, the
predicted rate of consuption and the natural rate of replentishment from
photo-synthesis and then compute the date by which the oxygen partial
pressure gets too low to support human life?

The other more critical factor is the rate of increase of carbon dioxide and
the predicatable point where the carbon dioxide partial pressure is high
enough to trigger the escape reflex where people seek "fresh air" - I feel
myself we have reached it already.

Can anyone work out a way of returning carbon dioxide to soot and oxygen
without making more carbon dioxide at the same time?

Only a thermonuclear reactor driving a carbon splitting reactor would do,
the natural process of burying carbon made from photosynthesis will take at
least 100 million years to restore the damage done to the global atmosphere
in the last 40 years. Be resonable, another 40 ? I don't think we'll last
that long? I'll be dead soon anyway, I'm 63.

It's payback time folks!

We warned you 40 years ago and you chose to ignore us.... Whose an idiot
now?

Chris.
 
Top