From: CrazyCam on 7 Feb 2007 15:03
> Either/or. Do you feel that you *would* help, or that you *have to* help if
> it was lethal to you?
Ah, now I understand the question better.
If I thought assisting might be lethal to me, I wouldn't do it.
A situation can be potentially lethal to some folk but not others.
An unconscious person (frinstance) sitting in a crashed car with petrol
dripping onto them is a lot more at risk than a fit, conscious,
reasonably well protected person who may remove them from the car.
As regards any legal requirement to assist, I don't care.
I believe that I have the brains to assess a situation and act accordingly.
From: G-S on 7 Feb 2007 15:14
> atec wrote:
>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> GB wrote:
>>>> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in
>>>>> Ok so I tested it myself.
>>>>> 5.7 Lt EFI Holden in diagnostics mode.
>>>> Won't work on an EFI anything.
>>> OK, so Clem has pointed out that this lights on = extra fuel business
>>> won't apply to my bike. You have pointed out that it won't apply to
>>> my car. Now you're trying to convince me using examples involving my
>>> '04 CBR1100XX
>> Bicycle is a good example , it becomes harder to peddle when more
>> lights are added , more energy is required ( fuel) and there is the
> So the two vehicles in my garage with alternators are not good examples
> of how an alternator increases fuel consumption, but the only one
> without an alternator is a good example...
Have a look at my garage sometime... there are several good examples :)
From: Peter Cremasco on 7 Feb 2007 15:26
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:10:18 +1100, Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
>On 8/2/07 1:03 AM, in article
>> Simple physics really! When switched on, the headlamp assembly pushes the
>> light beams forward (this is particularly noticable in the absence of
>> daylight), this is called an action. So using Newtons third law which states
>> that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, the same
>> force applied by the headlamp to push the light beams is then also applied
>> to the vehicle, pushing it back! Extra petrol is used to overcome the force
>> applied by the headlamps.
>So, if I mount it backwards, I use less fuel!
You'd have a light drive. :)
PeterC [aka MildThing]
'01 Yamaha FJR1300
From: Tim Moran on 7 Feb 2007 16:40
In article <45c9caa3$0$1155$61c65585(a)un-2park-reader-
01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, "atec77 "@hotmail.com says...
> Nev.. wrote:
> > GB wrote:
> >> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in
> >> news:45c9a902$0$25338$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> >>> Ok so I tested it myself.
> >>> 5.7 Lt EFI Holden in diagnostics mode.
> >> Won't work on an EFI anything.
> > OK, so Clem has pointed out that this lights on = extra fuel business
> > won't apply to my bike. You have pointed out that it won't apply to my
> > car. Now you're trying to convince me using examples involving my
> > bicycle...
> > Nev..
> > '04 CBR1100XX
> Bicycle is a good example , it becomes harder to peddle when more lights
> are added , more energy is required ( fuel) and there is the answer
Makes absolutely no difference on my pushbike when I turn the lights on,
doesn't make it any harder to peddle.
As for the original argument, in the real world, as opposed to this
place, any additional load from an average set of headlights would make
absolutely buggerall difference, the average WRX has more power drain in
each of the 12 subwoofers in the boot.
Now turn the aircon on, and thats another story, a much cooler one
From: Nev.. on 7 Feb 2007 16:57
> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in news:45c9c5bc$0$25322$5a62ac22(a)per-
>> But the diagnostics indicate that it's not using more fuel..
> The diagnostic information isn't sufficiently accurate to be a
> reliable indicator of what's going on. You might need a fuel flow
> meter that measures in poofteenths, not decilitres. You've also
> got a computer between the raw fuel flow rate and the display that
> is trying to make predictions about how any flow rate might pan
> out over the course of an hour.
I think you've been reading too many physics books and you've lost sight
of reality. Are you saying that if I measure something once per second
and then multiply that by 3600 my result is not an accurate measure of
an hourly rate? Do you think the computer controlling the fuel rate
The flow rate actually updates much more often than once per second. At
a guess I'd say it's updating about 3 times per second, and at idle or
on the flat while driving it remains steady, which I think would
indicate that it is not just making a prediction but accurately
reflecting the fuel flow rate.
As for it's ability to reliably indicate what's going on.. if the engine
management computer controlling the fuel injection system doesn't know
what's going on you better start writing some new physics books to
explain how exactly it all works. Maybe it uses the same magic to
control fuel flow that it uses to power the headlights.
If it's measuring 2.68l/hr once per second that would be umm...
0.0007444L/sec.. I reckon it updates about maybe 3 times per second
meaning it's measuring 0.00024815L/sec. I would have to check your
physics books to see if that is near enough to a poofteenth or not, I
reckon it is probably pretty damn close.