End of an Era
 

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , William
Graham writes


I am impressed, however with these formula I cars that can hit the
rails at
175 MPH, fly end over end a dozen times, completely come apart at the
seams
until there is nothing left of them but the cage containing the driver,
which, after he unbelts himself, he walks away from without a
scratch....Why
can't they do that with the family sedan?

To an extent, most of them are designed to deform protectively in
exactly the same way - hence the presence of crush zones etc. Of
course, they won't withstand a 175MPH impact with all/any passengers
surviving, but the suspension doesn't fall apart when they drive over a
pothole either. Drivers and passengers of the average family sedan
wouldn't accept being strapped into the harness by a 3 man team (drivers
cannot tighten the harness enough by themselves), wearing a HANS brace
or flameproof overalls every time they get into the vehicle either or
being fit enough to withstand 10g differential forces on their neck
muscles before being given a license every season.

There have been many technologies that have transitioned from F1 to
commercial cars, seat belts, anti-lock brakes, monocoque/unibody chassis
to name a few, but ultimately they are different vehicle types with
vastly differing requirements. One common aspect is that if you make
the car capable of going fast enough, that is as fast as some people
will drive it, and I personally don't want to see someone in my rear
view mirror approaching at 175MPH while I am stuck at traffic lights on
my way home from work.

When driving on the Autobahns, it isn't all that unusual to be passed
when going at speeds approaching 200mph! Those guys DRIVE. NOte that
the drivers are MUCH more responsible there than in the US.

A good integral rollbar would be of great aid in preventing deaths, as
would a simplified full harness, rather than the airbag.

End of an Era
 

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote:

I personally don't want to see someone in my rear view mirror approaching
at 175MPH while I am stuck at traffic lights on my way home from work.

The easy way to avoid that is to not own a car. (That's one of the reasons I
ended up in Tokyo.)

Seriously, I don't understand why more people don't decide not to own cars.
The (quite rational*) decision not to own a car ought to be a possibility,
right?

*: Cars are dangerous and expensive (at the least; breathing gasoline fumes
can't be good for one). And one can buy a lot of camera equipment for the
price of a car.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



That depends on where you are. New York City, Tokyo, London, yes.
Beeville, Texas, or Allen, Tx, or Henderson, Nv. not feasible.

End of an Era
 

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
David J. Littleboy wrote:
*: Cars are dangerous and expensive (at the least; breathing gasoline fumes
can't be good for one). And one can buy a lot of camera equipment for the
price of a car.

However, often a car is the most convenient way to get all that gear to
where you need it. :-)


Not everyone lives in a major city with adequate public transportation,
or wants to.

End of an Era
 

Roger wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:58:03 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:

"Philip Homburg" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
*: Cars are dangerous and expensive (at the least; breathing gasoline
fumes
can't be good for one). And one can buy a lot of camera equipment for the
price of a car.
However, often a car is the most convenient way to get all that gear to
where you need it. :-)

It's not only convenient, here in the states with wide open spaces
it's a necessity. Howeve I have found that for trips it is cheaper to
rent a car than drive your own unless your car is paid for and has a
lot of miles on it.

Going from Michigan to Denver is cheaper to fly my own airplane
compared to driving. Coach class commercial flights are cheaper yet
and by far the cheapest was to rent a car.

I can hire a cab for a day for many more days than I have days to go out
shooting on the money I save not having a car. (Not that I've ever done
that, since public transportation here is flipping amazing, but it's on my
list of things to try for rural locations.)

I could also legally rent a car, but that wouldn't be a good idea (I've
never driven in Japan, and only drove for a year in the US and converted my
US license to a Japanese one).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

A commercial flight, booked months in advance can be much cheaper for a
long trip, say Dallas to Toronto, than driving and staying in hotels,
eating at restaurants. Unless one is fond of camping out, travel by car
can cost a lot more than just wear and tear on the car and gasoline.
I prefer to fly, and then drive a rented car, or more lately, just go on
a cruise, and leave the driving to the captain.

End of an Era
 

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Seriously, I don't understand why more people don't decide not to own cars.
The (quite rational*) decision not to own a car ought to be a possibility,
right?

I live in Philadelphia for that reason -- public transportation. But I
may end up leaving Philadelphia for a better job. The only places where
Americans can afford not to have cars are small towns with viable
downtowns and a handful of cities which have good enough public
transportation. Some employers (Comcast in Philadelphia for one) have
moved back into the cities (over a transportation interchange in
Comcast's case); a lot are still out where the trans doesn't reach.

The infrastructure of the US is auto-centric.

It is freedom-centric. Most US residents just want to go where they
want to go, WHEN they want to go and don't want to wait on a bus, cab,
or subway. I find the whole idea of using public transportation VERY
restrictive, and confining.

End of an Era
 

William Graham wrote:
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:57:15 GMT, Rebecca Ore
wrote:

The infrastructure of the US is auto-centric.
Yeah. It's going to come as an even bigger shock to you guys. But
you'll cope, as we all will have to.

Yes.....I don't see any real problems, myself......Getting rid of the
gas-guzzlers might be a traumatic experience for some, but I'm sure there
will be a number of other alternatives on the horizon. I see us as being
individually transportation orientated, but not necessarily gasoline
dependent as others seem to see us. When the gas runs out, we will just take
to electric vehicles or whatever we have to do. But crowding together into
busses or trains just isn't in the cards, and I just don't see that it
should have to be. We don't think that way, and our life style isn't
designed around that sort of thing. IOW, whatever they come up with, you can
be sure of one thing.....One person will be able to leave his house in it,
and drive it to wherever he wants to go without having to be dependent on
anyone else in order to go there. Whether it burns alcohol, or peanut
shells, or runs through storage batteries, or picks up energy from the road
or whatever, it will be a one man, one destination at a time vehicle.....Of
that, you can be sure.......


I agree, but it is a lot more fun if two can go together... Grin.
Technology WILL come through when the motivation reaches the necessary
level.

End of an Era
 

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:57:15 GMT, Rebecca Ore
wrote:

The infrastructure of the US is auto-centric.
Yeah. It's going to come as an even bigger shock to you guys. But
you'll cope, as we all will have to.

I'm moving to England if I can. Otherwise, I'm staying in Philadelphia,
a wonderful place separated from Pittsburgh by Northern Alabama.

I visited Philly, once. Got out of town as fast as my rented car would
carry me, then avoided the city when I returned to the airport. How CAN
you stand the smell?

End of an Era
 

Pudentame wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Pudentame wrote:
I currently have to be at work at 3:00am. It's just over 5 miles
away, slightly more than an hour walking.
The nearest grocery store is halfway to where I work.

Ah, so all you need is a bicycle. :-)



Yeah, so the limited number of busses there are in this town could run
over me.
Yeah, and bicycles are SO much fun when the temperature is -3F and the
wind is blowing 30mph. Toss in a little snow, and it's REALLY a ball.

End of an Era
 

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...

They do, to an extent. Crumple zones.

No one invented crumple zones, they just started saving as
much car as they could without having it collapse in on itself. Using no
frame at all was a master stroke. These things are so weak they created the
need for flat beds for towing. Try to jack one up and then close the doors.
Bob Hickey

End of an Era
 

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote

Got a bicycle?

*I* have, and even though I'm in my 50s and pretty knocked around with
kidney failure I use it a lot. I live within 5 Km of a major city (close
enough to be in a 2 hour parking area) and for most trips (hospital, shops,
weekend jaunts) the old 'deadly treadly' is a better option than my car,
since it is free and can be parked absolutely anywhere. Doesn't rain a lot
here though, I'll admit, nor does it get freezing cold, which would prevent
people in many places from using a bike. Sadly, many cities do not do enough
to promote cycling or provide safe routes for commuters; when oil hits $10 a
litre (and it will) they will have to...

Paul