HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

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)

"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

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. :-)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:03:39 -0800, "William Graham" wrote:

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?

They can.

But would you be prepared to pay $20,000,000 for one?

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:03:39 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

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....

Well, there had to be one. You really reckon this makes seat belts a
Bad Thing? Or is it merely fuel for a pro-personal-choice agenda?



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?

They do, to an extent. Crumple zones.

BTW, petrol IS $5 a gallon here in the UK. It's made no difference to
the pattern of car usage. The only thing that DID make a difference
was one week a few years back when an industrial dispute caused a
petrol famine. Somehow, everyone got most places they HAD to get. But
"convenience" trips were cut out, the roads were empty, and travel
became a pleasure. Even allowing for some necessary journeys being
postponed, there's obviously lots of scope for cutting down on car use
without life grinding to a halt.

"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. :-)

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

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:38:18 +0000, snapper wrote:

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:03:39 -0800, "William Graham" wrote:

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?

They can.

But would you be prepared to pay $20,000,000 for one?

Doesn't have to cost that much. Start with a model popular in some
sanctioned racing series for which all the pieces are available, weld in a
proper roll cage and 5-point harness and weld the doors shut and replace
the gas tank with a self-sealing fuel bladder, and do all other safety
mods that one is required to do for NASCAR, then always wear a Nomex
driving suit and full face helmet and you too will be able to run into a
wall at 200 MPH and walk away from it. You'll have to enter and exit the
car through a window and you'll itch and if you and your passengers don't
wear the helmet and use the harness then you're in more danger from the
roll cage than if you didn't have it, but do it all and you'll be as safe
as a race driver. Probably cost you a few thou to do it all if you do the
work yourself (but it won't be reliable unless you actually know how to
weld), a _lot_ more if you hire it done.



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