HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , Frank ess
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , just bob
kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote:

"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:

Recent study on the news the other night. You are twice as
likely
to die in an accident
with a small car than a large one, internal compensation devices
(airbags) nothwithstanding.


OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle
allows the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in
a larger, heavier, less maneuverable automobile.

I'm not worried about me being able to get out of the way, I'm
worried about the teenagers, alcoholics or both who I never see
coming.


Ayup. It ain't how good you are, it's how bad they are. The lowest
common denominator is the one you have to worry about here, 'cause
they can come from nowhere when you don't even have the time to
react, let alone defend.

It's like handing Joe Luser off of the street a DSLR in auto-program
mode and saying "go take some pictures" and handing a
photographically
skilled individual the same camera and saying "photograph me a
masterpiece", then comparing the results. 50% of it is the
workspace
between the ears, 40% of it is meaningful experience, and the last
10%
is just dumb luck. Most "drivers" on the road in this country today
rely mostly on the last 10% to get them through. The way I see some
"drivers" "drive", I wonder how they have lived as long as they
have.

As I noted elsewhere, a majority of it is a problem of people not
being taught how to _drive_ properly, but rather how to "operate a
motor vehicle" and how to pass the "drivers'" license test.

Then there are the "just plain stupid" variety, like the lady I saw
the other day, doing about 25 in a 55 zone, and when I finally got
room to pass her (5 miles & 10 minutes down the road), she waa
READING A F*^^&*KING BOOK while she was "driving".

See he
http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/incars.htm


Yep - I think I know some of those people. At least, I think I've been
behind them :^)



And you can always tell when the cell phone's in use by the cocked
angle of the head from behind. Why do people think they have to "lean
into" the phone? [probably for the same reason that they think a) that
they have to shout into it because they can't hear it well so
naturally, neither can the person on the other end*, and b) that the
rest of us are interested in the least in listening to their half of
the conversation in places like supermarkets and restaurants - i.e.,
stupidity, or lack of consideration for others]


You two are funny. Not that I don't agree with you, except for the
supermarket part. Cell phones were invented so that men out shopping could
call their S.O.s and say things like, "There are 26 different kinds of
tampons here--can you give me a frickin' clue?!!" My pet peeve (besides the
restaurant one) are those persons who talk very deliberately and loudly on
their cells when in public, as though to say, look at me, ain't I important!

"Graham Fountain" wrote in message
...
Really? - So Canon would have a fisheye that can be used on the 400D/30D
and their predecessors if they have a lens for every niche right? Oh
that's right they don't. Nikon and Pentax both have fisheyes for their
digitals.

Unfortunately Canon hasn't made consumer full frame fisheyes since the FD
days. I ended up buying a Peleng 8mm f/3.5 fisheye and I quite like it. It
has 25mm image circle so it works great for any 1x, 1.3x or 1.6x camera,
just crop the rectangle that you want that has the 180° diagonal that you
want or keep the dark corners if you like, or clone a bit more sky or ground
in, whatever. For the price I am very pleased and manually focusing an 8mm
lens is trivial.


Canon would have a number of zooms beyond 300mm wouldn't they? Well
actually they only have 1, the 100-400L, while Nikon and Pentax have a
number of zooms extending out to 600mm.

A longer zoom, or some non-L primes over 400mm would be nice for sure. The
longest now is the 135mm f/2.8 SF.


I'm guessing then that Canon would have a "travel" type lens, such as a
28-300, very handy lenses when you want to travel light. Oops, nothing
there either.

Canon does make a good 28-300mm lens however for the price of the 28-300mm
f/3.5-5.6L IS USM lens you can do quite a bit of traveling.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

The Canon 28-200mm is light and cheap but doesn't get great reviews. Canon
really needs to put some effort into a superzoom like the Tamron AF18-250mm
f/3.5-6.3 DI-II except maybe go even wider or longer and f/3.5-5.6 and add
USM and maybe an IS version and a little better quality than Tamron's and it
might sell like crazy and enjoy the benefits of high-volume manufacturing.

http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/rele.../news0914.html

Currently the Tamron 18-250 is the widest range zoom for the Canon mount.
It is unfortunate that Canon hasn't made a really convenient, wide range
zoom for the digital cameras for those occasions when you just want to take
a small dslr in a small triangular camera bag.

I wonder how many people wouldn't bother with a point and shoot if they
could get a small DSLR with a single wide range lens even if the lens ended
up fairly large to accomodate the wide zoom range? I wonder if more
pictures would be taken if there was a super convenient lens available?

In article , Matt Clara
wrote:

"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , Frank ess
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , just bob
kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote:

"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:

Recent study on the news the other night. You are twice as
likely
to die in an accident
with a small car than a large one, internal compensation devices
(airbags) nothwithstanding.


OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle
allows the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in
a larger, heavier, less maneuverable automobile.

I'm not worried about me being able to get out of the way, I'm
worried about the teenagers, alcoholics or both who I never see
coming.


Ayup. It ain't how good you are, it's how bad they are. The lowest
common denominator is the one you have to worry about here, 'cause
they can come from nowhere when you don't even have the time to
react, let alone defend.

It's like handing Joe Luser off of the street a DSLR in auto-program
mode and saying "go take some pictures" and handing a
photographically
skilled individual the same camera and saying "photograph me a
masterpiece", then comparing the results. 50% of it is the
workspace
between the ears, 40% of it is meaningful experience, and the last
10%
is just dumb luck. Most "drivers" on the road in this country today
rely mostly on the last 10% to get them through. The way I see some
"drivers" "drive", I wonder how they have lived as long as they
have.

As I noted elsewhere, a majority of it is a problem of people not
being taught how to _drive_ properly, but rather how to "operate a
motor vehicle" and how to pass the "drivers'" license test.

Then there are the "just plain stupid" variety, like the lady I saw
the other day, doing about 25 in a 55 zone, and when I finally got
room to pass her (5 miles & 10 minutes down the road), she waa
READING A F*^^&*KING BOOK while she was "driving".

See he
http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/incars.htm


Yep - I think I know some of those people. At least, I think I've been
behind them :^)



And you can always tell when the cell phone's in use by the cocked
angle of the head from behind. Why do people think they have to "lean
into" the phone? [probably for the same reason that they think a) that
they have to shout into it because they can't hear it well so
naturally, neither can the person on the other end*, and b) that the
rest of us are interested in the least in listening to their half of
the conversation in places like supermarkets and restaurants - i.e.,
stupidity, or lack of consideration for others]


You two are funny. Not that I don't agree with you, except for the
supermarket part. Cell phones were invented so that men out shopping could
call their S.O.s and say things like, "There are 26 different kinds of
tampons here--can you give me a frickin' clue?!!"

I realize that you're ([probably] at least half-) joking, but my
response to the actual statement is: Then he can bloody well (no pun
intended) step outside and make the damn call - _I_ don't want to be
forced into hearing his discussion about the frickin' tampons, or about
which salad dressing or brand of flour he should be getting, nor do I
want to hear about George and Martha and how the kids are doing from
some bimbo with a cell phone stuck to her face, who probably drives her
car just as recklessly with the cell phone still stuck there as she
does the shopping cart with which she just rammed me, because she was
too focused on her conversation and not on the world around her. I was
forced into listening to one womman in a doctor's waiting room, for
God's sake, discussing personnel problems at her work, including
people's names, and what she was going to be doing about them
(apparently she was some sort of supervisor at that workplace).

People just don't seem to understand that they are forcing other
unwilling people into participating in their conversations. "But MY
call is important" - no, I'm sorry, but 99% of public place cell phone
calls are NOT that important. Just how the hell did these people
manage to survive just a few years ago when cell phones didn't even
exist or were huge, lumbering things that no one wanted to cart around?
If you could make the same call later or more privately and not affect
world events or life and limb, your call is JUST NOT THAT IMPORTANT to
force others into participation.

Do I have a cell phone? Yes. Do I carry it all the time? No. It's
often left in the truck, or sometimes even at the motel or at home,
because being able to make a phone call is just not that improtant to
life. And I have a much more peaceful life - it's like meail, exactly
- *I* choose when *I* will be available and answer calls, *NOT* the
person on the other end. When I carry it, do I _ever_ use it in a
manner which can be intrusive to others? No. Unless it's a 911 call
or something similar, which is IMO not "intrusive", but actually
real-life important, I never make or take cell phone calls when in
public. Do I have it set to be so loud that people across the block
can hear it ring? No, it's on lowest setting, or vibrate only, at all
times. Do I use some obnoxious ring tone to make me stand out from all
the other cell phone rings going on at the same time? No, I have it on
a mild little "chirp" to avoid annoying others when it does ring. Do I
answer it when it rings when I am in a public place? No, I hit the
silence button while it's still in my pocket, and send them to voice
mail. I may or may not look at that time to see who it was (if doing
so would be rude to the person I am supposed to be having a
conversation with or otherwise interacting with, I definitely don't).
I see so many rude cell phone users that drop EVERYTHING when their
cell phone rings. It's like they can't BEAR to miss a single call.
It's HIGHLY rude to someone you are talking to to suddenly ignore them
and make the cell phone your priority. If I need to make a call, do I
just whip it out and dial? No, I politely take my leave of wherever I
am and find a quiet place where I'm not going to be bothering someone
by my call to make it.

I consider all those things to be a MINIMUM courtesy use of a cell
phone when in public. Call me old fashioned, but I beleive that we owe
courtesy to those around us if we desire courtesy in return (actually
we owe it anyway). Too bad that so very few others have the same
common courtesy to me and the rest of the others they are around. It's
one of my MAJOR pet peeves, and I've been known to take a cell phone
away from someone in a restaurant, tell the person at the other end how
rude the individual is being, and hang up their call. I even got
applause from some of the other diners in one case.

I've been very pleased to note several businesses (including one camera
repair shop in Portland) are now starting to put their feet down, so to
speak, and placing signs that forbid cell phone use in their
establishments. I wish more would. I often answer the hostess in a
restaurant "To hell with smoking or non-smoking, put me in the
Non-Cell-Phone section, please". I have a bumper sticker that says
"Why don't we just IMPLANT that cell phone - I can suggest an
appropriate spot". Am I anti- cell phone? NO! Cell phones are a
highly useful tool which I myself use when it is appropriate, but like
any tool they can be abused. I am anti- RUDE CELLPHONE USERS.

My pet peeve (besides the
restaurant one) are those persons who talk very deliberately and loudly on
their cells when in public, as though to say, look at me, ain't I important!


How about the ones with the cellphone clipped right on their ear all
the time - they're SO important (or at least they are in their own
minds) that they can't be disconnected from the network. The Borg are
he prepare to be assimilated, resistance is futile. Well, I can
suggest a place to implant their next version, let me tell you.





OK, topic drift is now complete, pet peeve rant is now completed. :^)

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

In article , Ken Lucke
wrote:

because being able to make a phone call is just not that improtant to
^^^^^^^^^
life. And I have a much more peaceful life - it's like meail, exactly
^^^^^

Opps, fat fingers. "important" "email"

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

J. Clarke wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:59:00 -0500, Pudentame wrote:

Bob Hickey wrote:
"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle allows
the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in a larger,
heavier, less maneuverable automobile. That's the
whole problem right there. Avoid, nimble, maneuverable? That's a joke,
right? I'd be happy to see "awake". I'd be happy to see "off the phone" I'd
be happy to see "make-up already done"..The limit of most peoples driving
knowledge is that soon after an accident, something will blow up right in
their face to save them. Mostly, after the crumple zone is done crumpling;
said air bag is much closer to the victim. Bob Hickey


Don't wear makeup; only use the cell phone after I've pulled off on the
shoulder to rat some a**hole b*&tard out ...

I generally try to anticipate what's going to happen ahead by the time
I get there, e.g. if everyone a mile or more down has their foot on the
brake, mine comes off the accelerator to start opening my stopping
distance *and* to give me room if I have to go off onto the shoulder to
let the idiot behind me rear-end the idiot in front of me.

And the person behind you in the Suburban doesn't notice this while doing
her makeup and talking on her cell phone so she drives right over you,
wondering what the "bump" was as she continues on her way.

Well, she might run over the guy in front of me, but like I wrote, I'm
always lookin' for an exit "just in case" ... no point in having
nimbleness if you're not prepared to use it if necessary.

Situational awareness is survival. Know what's going on around you and
be prepared to take whatever action you have to take to avoid an *accident*.

I'm in the National Guard. I teach driving to military police. I teach
them to drive under what might be considered less than ideal conditions.
They have to satisfy me they're going to be able to drive to survive
before they're licensed to drive a military vehicle. And they have to be
licensed to qualify in their MOS; i.e. to remain MPs.

Some of them will take a lot of instruction. But when I'm done with them
they won't be yackin' on a cell phone or puttin' on makeup while
drivin'. And their attention will stretch from the bumper to as far down
the road as they can see, both forward and in the mirrors, as well as to
the sides, and they'll be constantly evaluating what's happening around
them and how it's going to affect them, as well as what to do about it.

*Before it happens!*

Most of them will never drive anything larger than a HMMWV, but I'm
qualified to teach and test up to 10 tons (HMMWV [all variants], 2-1/2T,
5T, 5T Tractor & 40' trailer, HMMET, HMMET Tanker, PLS, FMTV - all with
and without trailers).

I can operate M113, M1059 and M577 carriers; 4K, 6K and 10K rough
terrain forklifts and 10K ATLAS; and even have a license to drive a mule.

The only real difference between driving here and driving there, is the
idiots over there *intentionally* try to kill you. As far as being
prepared and knowing where you can go if you gotta go, there ain't no
difference.

BTDT-GTTS ... ramping up to do it again.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:47:57 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote:

In article , Matt Clara
wrote:

"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , Frank ess
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , just bob
kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote:

"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:

Recent study on the news the other night. You are twice as
likely
to die in an accident
with a small car than a large one, internal compensation devices
(airbags) nothwithstanding.


OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle
allows the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in
a larger, heavier, less maneuverable automobile.

I'm not worried about me being able to get out of the way, I'm
worried about the teenagers, alcoholics or both who I never see
coming.


Ayup. It ain't how good you are, it's how bad they are. The lowest
common denominator is the one you have to worry about here, 'cause
they can come from nowhere when you don't even have the time to
react, let alone defend.

It's like handing Joe Luser off of the street a DSLR in auto-program
mode and saying "go take some pictures" and handing a
photographically
skilled individual the same camera and saying "photograph me a
masterpiece", then comparing the results. 50% of it is the
workspace
between the ears, 40% of it is meaningful experience, and the last
10%
is just dumb luck. Most "drivers" on the road in this country today
rely mostly on the last 10% to get them through. The way I see some
"drivers" "drive", I wonder how they have lived as long as they
have.

As I noted elsewhere, a majority of it is a problem of people not
being taught how to _drive_ properly, but rather how to "operate a
motor vehicle" and how to pass the "drivers'" license test.

Then there are the "just plain stupid" variety, like the lady I saw
the other day, doing about 25 in a 55 zone, and when I finally got
room to pass her (5 miles & 10 minutes down the road), she waa
READING A F*^^&*KING BOOK while she was "driving".

See he
http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/incars.htm


Yep - I think I know some of those people. At least, I think I've been
behind them :^)



And you can always tell when the cell phone's in use by the cocked
angle of the head from behind. Why do people think they have to "lean
into" the phone? [probably for the same reason that they think a) that
they have to shout into it because they can't hear it well so
naturally, neither can the person on the other end*, and b) that the
rest of us are interested in the least in listening to their half of
the conversation in places like supermarkets and restaurants - i.e.,
stupidity, or lack of consideration for others]


You two are funny. Not that I don't agree with you, except for the
supermarket part. Cell phones were invented so that men out shopping could
call their S.O.s and say things like, "There are 26 different kinds of
tampons here--can you give me a frickin' clue?!!"

I realize that you're ([probably] at least half-) joking, but my
response to the actual statement is: Then he can bloody well (no pun
intended) step outside and make the damn call - _I_ don't want to be
forced into hearing his discussion about the frickin' tampons, or about
which salad dressing or brand of flour he should be getting, nor do I
want to hear about George and Martha and how the kids are doing from
some bimbo with a cell phone stuck to her face, who probably drives her
car just as recklessly with the cell phone still stuck there as she
does the shopping cart with which she just rammed me, because she was
too focused on her conversation and not on the world around her. I was
forced into listening to one womman in a doctor's waiting room, for
God's sake, discussing personnel problems at her work, including
people's names, and what she was going to be doing about them
(apparently she was some sort of supervisor at that workplace).

People just don't seem to understand that they are forcing other
unwilling people into participating in their conversations. "But MY
call is important" - no, I'm sorry, but 99% of public place cell phone
calls are NOT that important. Just how the hell did these people
manage to survive just a few years ago when cell phones didn't even
exist or were huge, lumbering things that no one wanted to cart around?
If you could make the same call later or more privately and not affect
world events or life and limb, your call is JUST NOT THAT IMPORTANT to
force others into participation.

Do I have a cell phone? Yes. Do I carry it all the time? No. It's
often left in the truck, or sometimes even at the motel or at home,
because being able to make a phone call is just not that improtant to
life. And I have a much more peaceful life - it's like meail, exactly
- *I* choose when *I* will be available and answer calls, *NOT* the
person on the other end. When I carry it, do I _ever_ use it in a
manner which can be intrusive to others? No. Unless it's a 911 call
or something similar, which is IMO not "intrusive", but actually
real-life important, I never make or take cell phone calls when in
public. Do I have it set to be so loud that people across the block
can hear it ring? No, it's on lowest setting, or vibrate only, at all
times. Do I use some obnoxious ring tone to make me stand out from all
the other cell phone rings going on at the same time? No, I have it on
a mild little "chirp" to avoid annoying others when it does ring. Do I
answer it when it rings when I am in a public place? No, I hit the
silence button while it's still in my pocket, and send them to voice
mail. I may or may not look at that time to see who it was (if doing
so would be rude to the person I am supposed to be having a
conversation with or otherwise interacting with, I definitely don't).
I see so many rude cell phone users that drop EVERYTHING when their
cell phone rings. It's like they can't BEAR to miss a single call.
It's HIGHLY rude to someone you are talking to to suddenly ignore them
and make the cell phone your priority. If I need to make a call, do I
just whip it out and dial? No, I politely take my leave of wherever I
am and find a quiet place where I'm not going to be bothering someone
by my call to make it.

I consider all those things to be a MINIMUM courtesy use of a cell
phone when in public. Call me old fashioned, but I beleive that we owe
courtesy to those around us if we desire courtesy in return (actually
we owe it anyway). Too bad that so very few others have the same
common courtesy to me and the rest of the others they are around. It's
one of my MAJOR pet peeves, and I've been known to take a cell phone
away from someone in a restaurant, tell the person at the other end how
rude the individual is being, and hang up their call. I even got
applause from some of the other diners in one case.

I've been very pleased to note several businesses (including one camera
repair shop in Portland) are now starting to put their feet down, so to
speak, and placing signs that forbid cell phone use in their
establishments. I wish more would. I often answer the hostess in a
restaurant "To hell with smoking or non-smoking, put me in the
Non-Cell-Phone section, please". I have a bumper sticker that says
"Why don't we just IMPLANT that cell phone - I can suggest an
appropriate spot". Am I anti- cell phone? NO! Cell phones are a
highly useful tool which I myself use when it is appropriate, but like
any tool they can be abused. I am anti- RUDE CELLPHONE USERS.

My pet peeve (besides the
restaurant one) are those persons who talk very deliberately and loudly on
their cells when in public, as though to say, look at me, ain't I important!


How about the ones with the cellphone clipped right on their ear all
the time - they're SO important (or at least they are in their own
minds) that they can't be disconnected from the network. The Borg are
he prepare to be assimilated, resistance is futile. Well, I can
suggest a place to implant their next version, let me tell you.





OK, topic drift is now complete, pet peeve rant is now completed. :^)

Your pet peeve rant demonstrates that you're a loon.

plonk


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On 21 Dec 2006 11:11:19 -0800, "acl"
wrote:


Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , acl
wrote:

jeremy wrote:
mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars.
Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal
and smaller overall size.

So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size?


Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just
some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take
high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever
start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue
for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I
want METAL around me. The more the better.

Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one?

Yes, I've been in one from which I was lucky to get out alive. Can't
say it changed my view (if anything, it enhanced my opinion that how a
car handles is more important than how robust it is). I agree that if a
tank hits me then it's better to be in another tank, though.

About 5 years ago I had one of those immortal teenagers in his
invincible SUV come shooting out of a driveway with all 4 burning. Two
solid lanes of oncoming traffic on the left and trees to the right.

I only left about 12 feet of skid marks before sticking the nose of my
Trans Am into the side of that GMC Jimmy. He was going fast enough
to spin me through the oncoming traffic and into a bank parking lot.
The GMC turned 90 degrees and stopped about 30 feed down the left turn
lane.

It put the right front tire almost into the seat on that side. The
firewall was back against the bottom of the dash all the way across
and I wrapped the steering wheel around the column. The car stopped so
quick all the antennas bent over flat against the body.

Even bending that steering wheel I was unhurt. Punchier than after a
6-pack on an empty stomach, but unhurt. The kid in the SUV ended up in
the hospital with a broken shoulder or collar bone. The only thing
that save his life was that massive door pillar on the Jimmy.

However the air bags, seat and shoulder harness and that car body
folding up (plus being missed by all that oncoming traffic) is the
only reason I'm alive.

I also fly high performance airplanes. The interesting comparison is
insurance rates and vehicle value. The more you drive the higher your
rates due to exposure, but the more you fly the lower your rates due
to time building competency.



From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in
Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a
firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the
difference in outcomes.

Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on
the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor
vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles
(and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a
tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle
with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle
in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength
(literally).


If gas would get up to $5 a gallon we might be able to do something
about that.

We worry about the dangers of all kinds of devices and demand
protection. Then we go out and kill off between 40,000 and 50,000 a
year on the highways and chalk it up to the cost of doing business.

Well, we have very different priorities in cars, I must admit.

Any time you take a car out it's a risk. There is a calculated risk
associated with virtually every action we take. I'm willing to take
the higher risk associated with the smaller car, or flying an
airplane.

I drive a 4WD SUV for a lot of things and my wife's Hybrid when it's
available. I doubt I'm any safer in the SUV with all the *stuff* I
throw in back. Plus in either car I usually have a couple of cameras
in the right front seat. One with a Short to medium wide range zoom
and the other with a 200 to 500 zoom.

My first wife (many, many years ago in another life) lived because she
was thrown out of a car in a wreck. You would never get her to wear a
seat belt, even though the odds are far in favor for doing so. Had I
not had a seat belt on when I hit that SUV it would have been quite a
ride. One deputy with a kind of lop sided grin asked, "did you have
your seat belt on". I replied "I sure wouldn't be walking around like
this if I hadn't".

and the insurance company refused to rebuild...er ...fix it.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On 21 Dec 2006 11:11:19 -0800, "acl"
wrote:


Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , acl
wrote:

jeremy wrote:
mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new
cars.
Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet
metal
and smaller overall size.

So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large
size?


Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just
some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take
high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever
start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue
for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I
want METAL around me. The more the better.

Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one?

Yes, I've been in one from which I was lucky to get out alive. Can't
say it changed my view (if anything, it enhanced my opinion that how a
car handles is more important than how robust it is). I agree that if a
tank hits me then it's better to be in another tank, though.

About 5 years ago I had one of those immortal teenagers in his
invincible SUV come shooting out of a driveway with all 4 burning. Two
solid lanes of oncoming traffic on the left and trees to the right.

I only left about 12 feet of skid marks before sticking the nose of my
Trans Am into the side of that GMC Jimmy. He was going fast enough
to spin me through the oncoming traffic and into a bank parking lot.
The GMC turned 90 degrees and stopped about 30 feed down the left turn
lane.

It put the right front tire almost into the seat on that side. The
firewall was back against the bottom of the dash all the way across
and I wrapped the steering wheel around the column. The car stopped so
quick all the antennas bent over flat against the body.

Even bending that steering wheel I was unhurt. Punchier than after a
6-pack on an empty stomach, but unhurt. The kid in the SUV ended up in
the hospital with a broken shoulder or collar bone. The only thing
that save his life was that massive door pillar on the Jimmy.

However the air bags, seat and shoulder harness and that car body
folding up (plus being missed by all that oncoming traffic) is the
only reason I'm alive.

I also fly high performance airplanes. The interesting comparison is
insurance rates and vehicle value. The more you drive the higher your
rates due to exposure, but the more you fly the lower your rates due
to time building competency.



From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in
Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a
firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the
difference in outcomes.

Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on
the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor
vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles
(and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a
tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle
with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle
in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength
(literally).


If gas would get up to $5 a gallon we might be able to do something
about that.

We worry about the dangers of all kinds of devices and demand
protection. Then we go out and kill off between 40,000 and 50,000 a
year on the highways and chalk it up to the cost of doing business.

Well, we have very different priorities in cars, I must admit.

Any time you take a car out it's a risk. There is a calculated risk
associated with virtually every action we take. I'm willing to take
the higher risk associated with the smaller car, or flying an
airplane.

I drive a 4WD SUV for a lot of things and my wife's Hybrid when it's
available. I doubt I'm any safer in the SUV with all the *stuff* I
throw in back. Plus in either car I usually have a couple of cameras
in the right front seat. One with a Short to medium wide range zoom
and the other with a 200 to 500 zoom.

My first wife (many, many years ago in another life) lived because she
was thrown out of a car in a wreck. You would never get her to wear a
seat belt, even though the odds are far in favor for doing so. Had I
not had a seat belt on when I hit that SUV it would have been quite a
ride. One deputy with a kind of lop sided grin asked, "did you have
your seat belt on". I replied "I sure wouldn't be walking around like
this if I hadn't".

But I had a friend who walked away from an accident where his engine ended
up where his lap would have been had he been wearing his seat belt......He
didn't think much of them either....

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?

In article , Roger
writes
On 21 Dec 2006 11:11:19 -0800, "acl"
wrote:


Ken Lucke wrote:

Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on
the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor
vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles
(and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a
tank around me, if possible.

If gas would get up to $5 a gallon we might be able to do something
about that.

Careful what you wish for, Roger! We are way over $5 a gallon this side
of the pond (Current average price of 0.98GBP/litre works out at over
$7.4/ gallon US!) and I can assure you the price of gas makes absolutely
no difference to the skill or experience of the average driver on the
road, or the quantity.

Unfortunately for us, your "theory" was put into practice by British
governments decades ago and has been proved wrong every day since.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

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.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)