HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote

I visited Philly, once. Got out of town as fast as [I could]

Smell, I didn't notice. Rudest city I have ever been in though.

Funny how city slogans tell you just what is wrong with the city:

Cleveland:
"Best Location in the Nation"
Should be: "Unarguably one of the worst locations in the Nation"

"Cleveland Rocks"
Should be: "There's No Surf in Cleveland"

New York:

"I Love NY"
Should be: "You don't want to live here"

"The City that Never Sleeps"
Should be: "You Will Get No Sleep Because of the Noise"

Philadelphia:
"The City of Brotherly Love"
Should be: "The City of Cain and Able"

Los Vegas:
"What Happens Here, Stays Here"
Should be: "Your Money Stays Here"


I agree about the rudeness. I was parked at a gas station putting gas
in my rented car and a lady just backed into the car, and tried to push
my car back a few inches so she would have room to pull out of the
line... That with me standing there putting gas in the tank!
Considered giving her about a gallon up the....

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
Ron Hunter wrote:

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?

I used to live in NYC and in rural Virginia. The stench of rural life
beats any city any day.

Yes, farming areas can have their interesting smells, but crude oil and
dead fish beat any farming odor I have heard, and I grew up next to a
caged egg farm. I also grew up near Texas City, which has the same
crude oil and dead fish problem. Had a bit to do with leaving that area....

Paul Bartram wrote:
"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


10 dollars a litre??? Not in MY lifetime.

Bob Hickey wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
jeremy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
The US auto industry has made (so far) over 6M vehicles capable of
burning E85 (85% ethanol; 15% gasoline). One issue is the price: you
pay almost the same for a gallon of E85 as you do for gasoline. But you
get 20 - 25% less miles per gallon when burning E85.

Using ethanol is part of a good substitution strategy, however the first
environmental tenant is "reduce".

Cheers,
Alan


I think the biggest problem with E-85 is not only hi
price and poor milage but the fact that it can't use the pipeline to ship
the stuff. Imagine an oil company having to buy a tractor/trailer for every
station for every day coming from say, Iowa to NY, and getting maybe 3 to 4
MPH As it is there are gas drops all over NY. They can place an order
when they close and expect to have full tanks before 6 AM. What happens
when they have to come from the midwest? Bob Hickey


Somehow the logic of putting 10% alcohol into gasoline and causing 20%
reduction in miles/gallon (the actual case with my E85 capable engine),
to save gasoline totally escapes me.

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
"William Graham" wrote:

To believe such a thing shows lack of basic
reasoning ability........

The refusal to consider alternative means of transportation shows that
people use their brains for making excuses much more than they use them
for making process.

Alternatives must satisfy the NEEDS of the person in question. Telling
an old person that he/she needs to get a bicycle to go 6 miles each way
to get groceries is NOT an alternative. Providing inexpensive
transportation to such a person may be, even though it seriously impacts
their independence, and regiments their lifestyle. I would HATE to live
in a city where I had to depend on the schedules of public transportation.

William Graham wrote:
"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
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. :-)

For him, perhaps. But I am 71, and my weekly music lesson in Albany is over
20 miles away. I can't even use a moped, unless it's legal on I-5. There is
no reasonable way to get there without using the freeway.....Believe me, if
there was, I would buy a Honda trail 110 immediately.......


And do you use tire chains on that Honda during the winter? Grin.

William Graham wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:50:29 +0000, 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
I took a "test drive" in a new airplane to do some aerobatics. I got
in was tightening the 5-point harness while the demo pilot for the
corporation was checking things out. I pulled the harness as tight
as I could pull, then slipped my hand under it. Sooo, I braced my hand
and pulled a bit harder, but I could still work my fingers under it.
About the time I got to the point where I could no longer get my thumb
under the harness I noticed him watching me. His only comment was "I
see you've done this before". IOW if the harness is comfortable it
isn't tight enough. If you can work your hand under it, it isn't tight
enough.

Very few drivers would ever put up with that. OTOH few are capable of
even tightening a harness that tight by them selves.

cannot tighten the harness enough by themselves), wearing a HANS brace
At least in aerobatics we don't have to have some one else tighten the
harness. :-))
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.
But we do regularly pull 6 or more G's even at my age.

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.
It was far from 175 MPH but one afternoon on the way home for work I
was stopped at a stop light. I was the only car in that lane. There
was a lot of crossing traffic. All of a sudden I noticed a van coming
up behind and he was coming fast. There was a small opening in the
crossing traffic. I hit the horn and put the throttle to the floor
with that Corvette engine in the TA. I made it through the
intersection leaving a cloud of smoke. The van came through right
behind me. I hit 60 in a 30 zone as he stopped getting closer about 3
feet behind me.

Yes, that was the same TA I totaled when the SUV pulled out in front
of me. I don't think I'd have fared nearly as well had I been rear
ended at that speed.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Nice heads up driving! The last time I had a close call was when I was
reading one of these changing light bulb signs on the center strip of I-84
coming into Portland, and my wife said, "Look out!" When I looked back to
the road I saw that the traffic in the left lane in front of me was stopped,
and I was going 75 with only about 200 feet left to stop. When I floored my
ABS brakes, I felt exactly ZERO stopping force, so with less than 100 feet
to go, I took my foot off the brakes, punched the gas, and drove off the
road onto the center strip at over 65 MPH....When My wife asked me later why
I was accelerating, I said. "I never skid anywhere....If I am going to go
off a cliff, you can be sure of one thing....I'm gonna drive there, not skid
there...."
Fortunately, the ice plant slowed us down fine, and I drove back up onto
the road after we drove by the obstruction. (some stupid truck stopped in
the left lane for an unknown reason) I hate to run into anything....I will
always try to drive around an accident unless there is no other
choice.......


I have a 3 year old car with ABS, and have gotten into the ABS function
only once. I was coming over an overpass, only to see that some idiot
had closed two lanes of traffic in front of me. Fortunately, I was able
to steer out of the situation using the control, and time, given by the
ABS operation. Worth the investment for that single incident.

William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
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.

I agree, although, I do think airbags do have a use in preventing broken
necks in motorcycle accidents.....I would like to see them deployed from the
bottom of cycle helmets......


Oh, good, just blow the rider's head off, like they do children in cars?
Maybe not such a great idea.

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:48:25 -0500, 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. There's no bus service at that time
of night, and damn little at any other time. And the streets I'd have to
walk do not have sidewalks for over half that distance.

Got a bicycle?

Yes, but no place to secure it at work. Also no desire to ride up and
down that blind hill & curve at 2:30am, and especially not at 12:00 noon
coming home. It's a *VERY* busy street then, and there's a lot of
scofflaws who don't give a hoot about speed limits.

I've had to walk that way a couple of times when for some reason or
another I couldn't use my car.

OK. You prefer your car. I don't blame you. But when we pass beyond
these very few generations when personal powered transport has been
available to citizens of rich countries, you'll manage on a bicycle.
Next?

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:27:00 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

And by what you do for a living, and where you have to do it, and by many
other variables that usually grow along with your other choices, so changing
overnight is quite impossible, and certainly shouldn't be expected of a
whole nation of breadwinners.......

If we have to, it will be possible. It could happen tomorrow. Our
attempts to control the oil-producing countries may backfire even more
seriously than they have already. If the Saudis fall out of our
pocket and align with their kin we could be in real trouble. Doubtless
if America added its resources (though they'd doubtless dump us) we
could annihilate them. But WINNING the war without destroying the
resources would be harder.