P plate training ...not
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: Hammo on 7 Feb 2007 00:50 On 7/2/07 1:52 PM, in article eqbeu8$d3c$1(a)news-02.connect.com.au, "CrazyCam" <crazycam(a)ar.com.au> wrote: > Hammo wrote: >> >>>> CrazyCam wrote: >>> >>> Aye, but, Joe Public doesn't have them, and Joe is the most likely >>> person to be first on the scene. >>> >> Joe Public should be keeping the scene clear of further accidents and >> keeping themselves and others out of D-> danger. Then contacting people >> with the skills to undertake a rescue if they don't know what they are >> doing. > > Agreed. > >> There is no need for others to get hurt. > > Also agreed. > > <snip> > >>> In similar circumstances today, I'd really hate to just have to sit and >>> watch what happens because the doors are locked. <shrug> >> >> Do you think you would? Do you think you have to? > > "Would" or "have to" what? Either/or. Do you feel that you *would* help, or that you *have to* help if it was lethal to you? > > Hate standing by helplessly....yup, I think I would, but wouldn't have > to. I could, perhaps, try to rationalise doing nothing much to help with > thoughts like:"Car drivers deserve it." Interesting justification. > > Stand by helplessly...dunno, depends so much on the circumstances. > I think I have to at least stand by, by law. Really? I can't understand why, unless, it was you (as in the driver) that caused the accident, then failure to stop would be an issue. > > Or, are you asking if I would still try and take people out of a > potentially lethal situation? In which case, I'd like to think that I > would. Because, you believe it to be a "legal" requirement? Kind regards Hammo
From: Peter Cremasco on 7 Feb 2007 01:28 On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:59:29 +1100, "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: >Peter Cremasco wrote: >> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:06:32 +1100, Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/07 12:41 AM, in article 45c73421(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au, "F Murtz" >>> <haggisz(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: >> >>>> What is this idiocy about headlights. >>>> headlights in daylight do nothing except waste fuel. >>> Do tell, how? >> >> Well, Duh! Hammo. Lights use electrickery. Electrikery is drained from >> the battery. The alternator needs to replace electrickery in the >> battery. The extra work from the alternator uses up more fuel from the >> engine to drive it. >> >> How's THAT for logic? > >My alternator keeps my battery at a full charge, which means it must be >providing more charge than I actually use, all the time, which means >that any charge required for accessories like lights and radio is being >produced all the time, regardless of whether or not I'm actually using >them, which means that no more fuel is required. > >How's that for logic? Your alternator doesn't have a feedback that regulates how much electrickery is produced - and therefore how much work the alternator is doing? --- Cheers PeterC [aka MildThing] '01 Yamaha FJR1300 www.dmcsc.org.au http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/ # 37181
From: Toosmoky on 7 Feb 2007 01:30 Nev.. wrote: > Toosmoky wrote: >> In BMWs, the windows also drop two inches so the pressure increase >> inside the car when the airbags deploy doesn't blow them (or your >> eardrums) out, the battery leads sever themselves with a pyrotechnic >> charge and the car calls BMW for help. > > Can they really drop the windows in 0.04 sec? I have no reason to doubt it. They're not just dropped by gravity alone although I forget just how it all happens now. There was a lot to take in and I must admit I was somewhat amazed at the thinking that's gone into them. A lot of current cars have such features. One that I forgot about is an automatic fuel cutoff. One other feature that impressed me was that if the car senses that you're braking hard, it will apply additional force to the brakes to stop you in the shortest possible distance. -- Toosmoky Work to ride, Ride to Work... http://toosmoky.d2.net.au
From: Knobdoodle on 7 Feb 2007 02:02 "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message news:45c95f2b$0$25333$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > Knobdoodle wrote: >> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message >> news:45c918aa$0$25300$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... >>> GB wrote: >>>> "Mad-Biker" <mad-biker(a)westnet(Panties).com.au> wrote in >>>> news:45c7e78c$0$1028$61c65585(a)un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com. >>>> au: >>>>> much like air conditioning, the alternator still turns over at a >>>>> constant rate no matter how much power your draining! >>>> OK, do me a favour. Go out to the shed, fire up your car and let >>>> it idle. make a note of where the tacho needle is sitting. Now, turn >>>> the lights on, full christmas tree, high beams, the works. Make a note >>>> of where the tacho needle is sitting now. >>> I hope you're not suggesting that it will move, because that will blow >>> the original "uses more fuel" argument out of the water... >>> >> Eh? >> It'll show that there's more load and that equivalent throttle settings >> result in lower revs... > > and at lower revs the engine would surely consume less fuel, not more :) > No; because I adjusted the idle back up so they both matched! (You must've snipped out that bit when you snipped out the bits about "comparable situation") -- Clem PS; I just tested the three vehicles with tachos (The Brumby and TU250 are tacholess) Gnat's car; 1991 EFI 1.5L 4cyl revs dropped by about 50rpm when lights on. Michelle's car; 2004 EFI 1.5L 4cyl revs dropped by a fair amount but then immediately climbed back to where they were (tacho had no real calibration but it felt like a bigger drop than gNat's car so I'd guess about 100rpm.) 1987 K75 EFI 3cyl no noticeable change. The bike was cold and wouldn't idle real well to begin with so I don't say that was a totally definitive test though.
From: Knobdoodle on 7 Feb 2007 02:07
"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:C1EFB042.FA65%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... > > > > On 7/2/07 3:01 PM, in article > jacyh.3945$sd2.174(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, > "Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message >> news:45c918aa$0$25300$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... >>> GB wrote: >>>> "Mad-Biker" <mad-biker(a)westnet(Panties).com.au> wrote in >>>> news:45c7e78c$0$1028$61c65585(a)un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com. >>>> au: >>>>> much like air conditioning, the alternator still turns over at a >>>>> constant rate no matter how much power your draining! >>>> >>>> OK, do me a favour. Go out to the shed, fire up your car and let >>>> it idle. make a note of where the tacho needle is sitting. Now, turn >>>> the lights on, full christmas tree, high beams, the works. Make a note >>>> of >>>> where the tacho needle is sitting now. >>> >>> I hope you're not suggesting that it will move, because that will blow >>> the >>> original "uses more fuel" argument out of the water... >>> >> Eh? >> It'll show that there's more load and that equivalent throttle settings >> result in lower revs. >> Therefore you would draw the conclusion that a higher throttle setting >> would >> be required to maintain the same revs and thus more fuel would be used in >> any comparable situation. >> >> What's the logic behind your "blows .. argument out of the water"? > > Er, no. > > The statement was that lights waste fuel. > > I have yet to see that it does. > > Hammo > > (...blinded by the obvious?) > Where'd you get that statement? I thought he said that "headlights in daylight do nothing except waste fuel". If the lights are serving a purpose then the fuel isn't being wasted. -- Clem |