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 |
#911
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote: William Graham wrote: "Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... In article .com, sgtdisturbed 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? 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). Aren't the lighter bodies designed to use crumple zones to reduce the forces of impact upon the passengers by absorbing the impact as opposed to the driver feeling 100% of the impact (which would result in a higher percentage of injury) while using a firm, non-flexible body on their car? Newer cars seem to have better crash test ratings than older, not-so flexible cars. Ever had to extract a patient from one vs. the other? And then had to treat said patient? I thought not. -- Yeah, but the heavier the vehicle the safer, and so everyone goes for the heaviest they can get and/or afford....Soon the streets are full of tanks that weigh 10,000 pounds each, with their occupants glaring out or their little armored windows at each other.....Wouldn't it be better if they all went for the lightest vehicle they could find? - Then we wouldn't be paying to haul all that scrap iron around with us all the time......I guess the only way to reach that level of sophistication is for the price of the fuel to go through the roof, so nobody can afford to drive the tank....... Some still will. Note the vehicle in which the football player was killed. Longer than a city bus and didn't keep him safe. I never said that a heavier body would eliminate death or injury. I just prefer it from my experiences of 15 years of dealing with the results on-scene, first hand, up close. I've seen people survive 60mph headons with no seatbelts, and I've seen a person killed in a 5mph parking lot fender bender. Both are extreme examples of the combination of the incredible toughness and the incredible fragility of the human body. -- 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 |
#912
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:39:11 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote: Yeah, but the heavier the vehicle the safer, and so everyone goes for the heaviest they can get and/or afford....Soon the streets are full of tanks that weigh 10,000 pounds each, with their occupants glaring out or their little armored windows at each other.....Wouldn't it be better if they all went for the lightest vehicle they could find? - Then we wouldn't be paying to haul all that scrap iron around with us all the time......I guess the only way to reach that level of sophistication is for the price of the fuel to go through the roof, so nobody can afford to drive the tank....... There will still be those who will drive a smaller car. It's human nature. And, even if everyone suddenly discovered that smaller cars got better mileage, and then suddenly no one needed larger vehicles (through some feat of magic), how do we shrink trucks down to under 3000 pounds? The reality is, even if the CAFE standard were raised to 40mpg, larger passenger vehicles would still be needed; a fact that eludes some. -- Hillary Clinton was sworn into the Senate Thursday with her hand on a Bible which was held by her husband Bill. You could see it was an old dog-eared family Bible. It still has the yellow highlighting on the passages that say oral sex is not adultery. |
#913
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Laurence Payne wrote: On 7 Jan 2007 16:54:28 -0800, " wrote: It's quite clear that Mr. Payne is something far superior to a US citizen. Thanks for the compliment! Obviously you've never heard the phrase "damning with faint praise" or you wouldn't be so easily pleased. Is being considered "far superior" to an American only FAINT praise? THAT'S what you use all those guns for! Foot-shooting! What makes you presume that I'm American? |
#914
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Laurence Payne wrote: On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:39:11 -0800, "William Graham" wrote: Soon the streets are full of tanks that weigh 10,000 pounds each, with their occupants glaring out or their little armored windows at each other.....Wouldn't it be better if they all went for the lightest vehicle they could find? - Then we wouldn't be paying to haul all that scrap iron around with us all the time.... Yeah, but not in the Land Of The Free. Everyone ELSE could drive a lightweight, which would leave ME all the more impregnable in my tank. Social responsibility? Nah! I can AFFORD it, didn't you hear me? What do your keenly felt social responsibilities permit you to drive? |
#915
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
On 8 Jan 2007 14:26:02 -0800, "
wrote: What makes you presume that I'm American? Terribly sorry. No insult intended. |
#916
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... William Graham wrote: "Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... In article .com, sgtdisturbed 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? 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). Aren't the lighter bodies designed to use crumple zones to reduce the forces of impact upon the passengers by absorbing the impact as opposed to the driver feeling 100% of the impact (which would result in a higher percentage of injury) while using a firm, non-flexible body on their car? Newer cars seem to have better crash test ratings than older, not-so flexible cars. Ever had to extract a patient from one vs. the other? And then had to treat said patient? I thought not. -- Yeah, but the heavier the vehicle the safer, and so everyone goes for the heaviest they can get and/or afford....Soon the streets are full of tanks that weigh 10,000 pounds each, with their occupants glaring out or their little armored windows at each other.....Wouldn't it be better if they all went for the lightest vehicle they could find? - Then we wouldn't be paying to haul all that scrap iron around with us all the time......I guess the only way to reach that level of sophistication is for the price of the fuel to go through the roof, so nobody can afford to drive the tank....... Some still will. Note the vehicle in which the football player was killed. Longer than a city bus and didn't keep him safe. Yeah, but that was a drive-by shooting....He would need a special car modified for presidents and the like for that, and they cost a fortune.....It just goes to prove that "safe" is a relative term, like, "good", and there is no way to be completely safe. |
#917
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
"Bill Funk" wrote in message ... On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:39:11 -0800, "William Graham" wrote: Yeah, but the heavier the vehicle the safer, and so everyone goes for the heaviest they can get and/or afford....Soon the streets are full of tanks that weigh 10,000 pounds each, with their occupants glaring out or their little armored windows at each other.....Wouldn't it be better if they all went for the lightest vehicle they could find? - Then we wouldn't be paying to haul all that scrap iron around with us all the time......I guess the only way to reach that level of sophistication is for the price of the fuel to go through the roof, so nobody can afford to drive the tank....... There will still be those who will drive a smaller car. It's human nature. And, even if everyone suddenly discovered that smaller cars got better mileage, and then suddenly no one needed larger vehicles (through some feat of magic), how do we shrink trucks down to under 3000 pounds? The reality is, even if the CAFE standard were raised to 40mpg, larger passenger vehicles would still be needed; a fact that eludes some. That's right....As long as the trucks and other commercial vehicles are sharing the same roads as private vehicles, we are going to have this problem. Designing a safer cab for the passengers is about the best we can do...... |
#918
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
*From:* Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
*Date:* Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:00:40 +0000 On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:08:46 -0800, "William Graham" wrote: Interestingly, with alcohol, we will be growing the fuel ourselves.....Sort of "completing the cycle" as it were...... Round and round we go, taking energy out each time. Something not quite right there..... Nah, the energy is actually solar energy, harvested the slow way! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX ! | RiceHigh | Digital Photography | 1087 | January 8th 07 10:49 PM |
HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX ! | RiceHigh | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1073 | January 8th 07 10:49 PM |
hoya and pentax merging | map | Digital Photography | 0 | December 21st 06 05:14 PM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 16 | April 10th 05 11:10 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 0 | April 9th 05 06:03 AM |