If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#751
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message news Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high center of gravity. It was probably more than a truck passing them.. trucks routinely drive at 80+ around here and they don't blow any vehicles over. I would suspect driver error was the cause.. maybe swerving to avoid the truck he had nearly pulled into? |
#752
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:30:47 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote: "Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message news Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high center of gravity. It was probably more than a truck passing them.. trucks routinely drive at 80+ around here and they don't blow any vehicles over. I would suspect driver error was the cause.. maybe swerving to avoid the truck he had nearly pulled into? Nope, he was driving straight down his own lane according to the report. He was moving slow and they passed only a couple feet apart. I've had them rock a full size SUV but no worry about going over. OTOH I had the gust front of an oncoming storm put mine right up on two wheels but a slight turn away put the wheels back down. |
#753
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:12:12 -0500, John Turco wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:32:27 -0500, John Turco wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: heavily edited, for brevity Sounds like detroit and their deathtraps of the 50's and 60's. Turn hard and the car flips over -- obviously it's operator error. edited, for brevity My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower" philosophy of automotive design. Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was virtually nonexistent, back then. Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high center of gravity. edited Hello, Roger: Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g Cordially, John Turco |
#754
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
John Turco wrote:
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:12:12 -0500, John Turco wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:32:27 -0500, John Turco wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: heavily edited, for brevity Sounds like detroit and their deathtraps of the 50's and 60's. Turn hard and the car flips over -- obviously it's operator error. edited, for brevity My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower" philosophy of automotive design. Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was virtually nonexistent, back then. Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high center of gravity. edited Hello, Roger: Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g Cordially, John Turco Yes, but ANY vehicle can be driven beyond its capabilities, with often deadly results. Often the problem is that the driver didn't take the right action in a panic, and made the results worse. Trying to restabilize a vehicle that is outside its safe performance parameters requires both skill, and experience, which most drivers don't have. |
#755
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
Ron Hunter wrote:
John Turco wrote: "Roger (K8RI)" wrote: My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower" philosophy of automotive design. Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was virtually nonexistent, back then. Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high center of gravity. Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g Yes, but ANY vehicle can be driven beyond its capabilities, with often deadly results. Often the problem is that the driver didn't take the right action in a panic, and made the results worse. Trying to restabilize a vehicle that is outside its safe performance parameters requires both skill, and experience, which most drivers don't have. The point is that the GEO is a dangerous piece of crap. -- john mcwilliams |
#756
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
John McWilliams wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: John Turco wrote: "Roger (K8RI)" wrote: My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower" philosophy of automotive design. Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was virtually nonexistent, back then. Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high center of gravity. Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g Yes, but ANY vehicle can be driven beyond its capabilities, with often deadly results. Often the problem is that the driver didn't take the right action in a panic, and made the results worse. Trying to restabilize a vehicle that is outside its safe performance parameters requires both skill, and experience, which most drivers don't have. The point is that the GEO is a dangerous piece of crap. Hi, How come? If you treat crap like crap it's OK. Are you going to drive it like a Corvette? I see many crappy drivers on freeway every day year round. I wonder how they got their licence. Driver controls his/her car, so called motor vehicle operator just knows how to start a car and move it along the road. |
#757
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:17:03 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote: John Turco wrote: "Roger (K8RI)" wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:12:12 -0500, John Turco wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:32:27 -0500, John Turco wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: heavily edited, for brevity Sounds like detroit and their deathtraps of the 50's and 60's. Turn hard and the car flips over -- obviously it's operator error. edited, for brevity My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower" philosophy of automotive design. Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was virtually nonexistent, back then. Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high center of gravity. edited Hello, Roger: Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g Cordially, John Turco Yes, but ANY vehicle can be driven beyond its capabilities, with often deadly results. Often the problem is that the driver didn't take the right action in a panic, and made the results worse. Trying to restabilize a vehicle that is outside its safe performance parameters requires both skill, and experience, which most drivers don't have. Both statements are true but the tracker had very narrow limits. A narrow, short wheel base with a high center of gravity is just asking for trouble. On top of that they did not set low like they should have. Once past the point of no return you are along for the ride. |
#758
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
John McWilliams wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: John Turco wrote: "Roger (K8RI)" wrote: My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower" philosophy of automotive design. Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was virtually nonexistent, back then. Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high center of gravity. Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g Yes, but ANY vehicle can be driven beyond its capabilities, with often deadly results. Often the problem is that the driver didn't take the right action in a panic, and made the results worse. Trying to restabilize a vehicle that is outside its safe performance parameters requires both skill, and experience, which most drivers don't have. The point is that the GEO is a dangerous piece of crap. When one buys a high-COG vehicle, he should have enough sense to KNOW it can't be driven like a high performance sports car. BTW, ALL cars are dangerous, especially when driven beyond their design parameters. |
#759
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
Ron Hunter wrote:
John McWilliams wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: don't have. The point is that the GEO is a dangerous piece of crap. When one buys a high-COG vehicle, he should have enough sense to KNOW it can't be driven like a high performance sports car. How many folks who bought a GEO have any sense at all? BTW, ALL cars are dangerous, especially when driven beyond their design parameters. Yes, Ron, you've made that completely obvious statement many times. And you don't need to SHOUT! -- john mcwilliams |
#760
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
"ASAAR" wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:29:10 -0700, just bob wrote: Also I am all in favor of an external drive for storing pics and perhaps another one for backups such as Acronis True Image. Of course, the new DVD's may store most of your data or programs depending on what you currently have or will have -- DVD rewritables that is, to keep ongoing cost down. Miles DVD's are too small and too slow. I just did a four-day event and I've got about 50GB or raw files. I'm not going to 1) put this on many DVDs or 2) write that on a couple HD DVD's and wait hours and hours to burn and have crap read speed. Nope, I backup to external hard drives, two of them. And I can work from them directly. I now own about ten external USB HD's. Not really. DVDs are not too small and too slow. It's more accurate to say that they may be too small and too slow for you, but probably entirely adequate for most people. This reply, btw isn't really intended to be critical of your method so much as giving me an opportunity to discuss Blockbuster's just announced decision to back the Blu-Ray disc format. Having said that, your backup needs are not at all typical, and from what you've said so far, while you're archiving something, you're not really performing true backups, unless you have one copy of all of your files saved on five of the hard drives and another copy on the remaining five hard drives. If your business couldn't survive the loss of your files due to theft, fire or some other disaster, complete archive copies stored at different locations would be wise, and high capacity tapes might be more practical than using hard drives. But before very long Blu-Ray discs may be a practical alternative. I say this because just this morning I heard a business news item indicating that Blu-Ray just made a substantial move to become the standard format eclipsing HD-DVD, with Blockbuster's decision to back the Blu-Ray format. They made this decision because they found that in a study of rentals of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD titles in 250 of their stores, more than 70% were Blu-Ray. They've decided to only stock Blu-Ray titles in their 1450 US stores. (Another report says, however, that the HD-DVD titles will continue to be available in the 250 stores where they're currently being rented). What's more, Microsoft also admitted that their Xbox 360 may eventually support Blu-Ray discs which have a 50GB capacity per dual layer disc, and multilayer discs will eventually up that to 100GB to 200GB/disc. The initial Blu-Ray 2x drives have data rates of 72Mbps but several 4x/144Mbps drives should be available shortly, and eventually 8x/288Mbps drives. One of the 4x drives (Benq) can burn the 50GB dual layer discs, so burning 50GB should take about 45 minutes, so you shouldn't have to "wait hours and hours to burn". If you need to use two discs to hold the entire 60GB, you may still get all of the files backed up in under an hour. One of the reasons I like the hard drives is I can update the data. And yes, storing a copy offsite is the only true backup. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|