From: atec "atec77 on
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> atec" <"atec77 wrote:
>> Olive ?
> Damn, damn.
> Theo :-)
Pffttt :)
From: Theo Bekkers on
Mad-Biker wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> High beams. Driivng lights are not allowed to be wired so that they
>> can be on except with high beam. So you can't have them on unless
>> you are on high beam.

> all the new cars ive seen come so they can be on with any lights on,
> including parkers.
> which makes sence really because when your driving in fog, you turn
> them on and your low beams, so the highbeams dont reflect off the fog
> blinding you!

You're talking about fog lights, I'm talking about driving lights. Driving
lights are long distance lights to illuminate the road further ahead then
your high beams do. It is illegal to have them wired in such a way that they
can be on when the high beams are not. Fog lights are designed to be
short-range lights to spread a wide low beam with lots of side lighting.


From: atec "atec77 on
sharkey wrote:
> atec <"atec77 "> wrote:
>> Olive ?
> But what should I run in my Boxer?
> -----sharks
You run in boxers ?
From: Hammo on
On 12/2/07 10:43 AM, in article
<jlittler(a)> wrote:

> On Feb 11, 11:50 pm, Hammo <hbaj2...(a)> wrote:
>> <knobdoo...(a)> wrote:
>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2...(a)> wrote:
>> Now fuel systems are all about air to fuel ratio. Best situation is when
>> the ratio is adjusted for all situations. Hence EFI becoming better and
>> better wrt emissions. Why? It's not magic, it is due to the monitoring of
>> the system and adjustments that are made via many circuits many times per
>> second. What is based on? What measurement could possibly do this, what
>> principle? Stoichiometry.
>> I.e. The equation for combustion wrt air:fuel ratio. That monitors how much
>> fuel is required. It is calculated via moles of fuel based on the RON.
>> This is why some cars run better, or require higher octane fuels (wrt EFI).
>> If you have a running total of fuel used based on the chemical reaction, you
>> have a better indication than fuel flow as it relates to the chemistry, i.e.
>> irreversible chemical reaction that converts fuel to energy.
> <doubtful look> maybe the F1 teams do this, but too bloody expensive
> for a run of the mill road car.

No, I don't think so, and I this is why the focus on the need for a "fuel
flow measure" to be utter bollocks. Clem claims it to be obfuscation.


From: Hammo on

On 12/2/07 12:48 PM, in article
45cfc78a$0$31884$5a62ac22(a), "Nev.."
<idiot(a)> wrote:

> Knobdoodle wrote:
>> [crinkles brow]
>> What's this new diversion you're trying now Hammo?
>> "the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine."?!!?
>> What the hell has that got to do with the fuel waste through unnecessary use
>> of driving lights?
> Eh? I thought we'd already established that there was no waste, or, if
> there was, it was only measurable at a theoretical level.

I don't know either, I have to keep pointing things out as someone else is
trying to "divert".


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?