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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
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. If you want to see a decent driver, watch for long term motorcyclists who have survived commuting for 25+ years in a crowded metropolitan area. When you see one of them get in a cage, you can be pretty sure that they're not going to be causing *OR* involved in any of the problems in their vicinity on the road. Oh, and BTW, my 2wd standard cab shortbed Chevy pickup is small enough, nimble enough, and handles well enough to avoid idiots on the road. The fact that it is large enough and stout enough to provide protection should one of said idiots manage to somehow launch him or herself UNAVOIDABLY into my path of travel is merely a bonus. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message ... 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? Hey! - I didn't say that I was against them. I was just remembering that guy, and why he was against them. Actually, the only thing I have aginst them is their ****-poor design. I used to own a racing corvette.....The guy who owned it before me raced it. It had a beautiful racing harness that locked me to the rear firewall and offered much better protection than the very poor spindly thin straps that they put in the new cars today. Between my roll bar, and that racing harness, I really felt well protected in that 'vette. Most of the seat belts they put in the new cars won't keep you from sliding under them in a real crash. But if I had that vette harness today, the cops would be stopping me every time I went anywhere because it would look from outside the car, like I wasn't wearing my normal seat belts. IOW, they are not only poorly designed, but the laws that have been built up around that poor design have now locked us into it! 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. Sure.....This is normal, and to be expected....And, had the gas crisis continued, people would have found a way to get where they needed to go on a more permanent basis. As I say, we here in the US are individual-transportation oriented, and we will find a way to continue in that mode, even if we end up each driving our own electric scooters.... |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
"Alan Browne" wrote in message .. . jeremy wrote: "Alan Browne" wrote in message .. . Laurence Payne wrote: 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. People can make somewhat minor changes to their auto usage and have a great impact on fuel consumption. Immediate convenience always triumphs over thoughtfulness, however. If we stop buying new cars and keep our present ones for an extra five years, the automobile industry will grind to a halt and our governments will find the needed petroleum. Who wants to pay beaucoup bucks for a car, only to be unable to use it? I think we squandered the 3 decades after the 70s Oil Embargo to have come up with autos that used alternative fuels. I am told that Brazil runs their cars on alcohol, which can be manufactured, rather than imported. How is it that a third world country can put a big dent in the oil shortage problem, while we cannot. While I agree with your basic sentiments, by minor changes in automobile use I simply mean using vehicles more efficiently. This includes maintenance and driving habits. (Such as combining erands). Brazil's automobile ethanol use is about 40 - 45%. Their feedstock is sugar cane which gives a very high energy return (you need energy to make ethanol). 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". As to finding more petrol, we have burned the easiest and cheapest to find, easiest and cheapest to refine oils. Now we have to further, spend more (money and energy) to get oil that needs more money and energy to refine... The Canadian lunacy of using relatively clean burning ( but CO2 emitting ) natural gas to extract oil from tarsands to sell to the US who are the most prolifically wasteful energy users on the planet is personally shaming to me as a Canadian. Cheers, Alan There is no reason to be ashamed of selling something you have in large quantities to a bunch of idiots who are willing to pay an inflated price for it because they are too stupid to develop a better way of transporting themselves. When our economics warrents it, we will (reluctantly) develop a different way of getting where we want to go. In the meantime, you should sell us whatever our little hearts desire, and enjoy your profits! I can see a number of alternative ways to drive cars on the horizon. Some are out there on the roads right now. But as long as gasoline is cheap, (which it is) then we are gonna keep the pedal to the metal on these SUV's, boy, and don't you forget it! |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"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? Unfortunately, many of us live in places where we would not be able to get to work, buy groceries, get to school or do just about anything else in life without a car. 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. The nearest grocery store is halfway to where I work. It's just about where the sidewalks start. So to get groceries, I'd have to buy a wagon, or some other cart and drag it 2-1/2 miles along busy streets with no sidewalks to the store, and then drag it back along those same busy streets with no sidewalks to get them home. Included in this stretch is a long hill with a blind curve going to the bridge at the top. There's thick hedges planted along the roadside to keep people from walking along the shoulder where there's not even a place you could dive off the road if you had to. There is a convenience store with limited selection (and higher prices) within a couple of blocks of my house, and I do always walk there. Finally, what is *not* within walking distance of my house is many of the places I want to go to take pictures. *: 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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
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 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Laurence Payne wrote:
So what's your point? DO American insurers charge more for high-mileage drivers? (UK insurers don't.) Yes, they do. UK insurers would if the government would let them. US insurers are less regulated. The theory is that higher mileage = greater exposure to possible accident, i.e. more time on the road gives more idiots a shot at you. DO they take account of years of experience, or just of age? Yes. One or the other ... or both ... or neither. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:58:03 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: "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. :-) It's not only convenient, here in the states with wide open spaces it's a necessity. Howeve I have found that for trips it is cheaper to rent a car than drive your own unless your car is paid for and has a lot of miles on it. Going from Michigan to Denver is cheaper to fly my own airplane compared to driving. Coach class commercial flights are cheaper yet and by far the cheapest was to rent a car. 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 Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
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. :-) -- 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 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax not viable??
On 2006-12-21 14:13:36 -0600, "jeremy" said:
No, the driving factor is that Pentax has lagged behind Canon and Nikon in the digital camera business, and is now having to deal with competition from companies that previously had not entered the camera business, like Sony, Panasonic, Casio and HP. Pentax screwed up, big-time, and they are no longer viable. Sorry, I don't see it. The DSLR market is exploding, and Pentax is making waves with the K100D and K10D. The K10D is selling substantially above Pentax's forecasts. I can't see any logical reasons for Hoya to walk away from that business when it's being handed to them on a plate. Hoya will get no more mileage out of the Pentax brand name than Konica got out of their use of the Minolta name. People are getting wise to the fact that the mere presence of a well-known brand name does not guarantee that the former quality levels are going to be maintained. So far the K100 and K10 are getting glowing reviews. I'm not aware of anything in their quality levels that people should be shying away from. We'll see if they continue that course under Hoya. . . But there's no question that Pentax has the resources to compete successfully, because they are already doing it. I don't anticipate crowds lining up to buy the "Hoya-Pentax" brand of cameras and lenses ("SMC Hoya-Pentax?") They'll still have the Pentax name on them. Although, I personally wouldn't care if the cameras had Black & Decker marked on them as long as they deliver the goods. And who knows, if Hoya-Pentax fumbles, then maybe Samsung will pick up the ball and keep the K-mount alive and do good things with it? It just may be the right time for me to embrace plastic bodies and buy some Nikon or Canon digital gear. I'm just in the dumps over hearing that news of Pentax's upcoming demise. We're going to become orphans. Get a grip, man! If Pentax vanishes tomorrow, your camera and lenses will keep right on working. In fact, there will probably be a lot of good, inexpensive gear hitting eBay from people who just can't stand the thought of being "orphans". -- Tony Belding, Hamilton Texas |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax not viable??
"Tony Belding" wrote in message
news:2006122617465316807-zobeid@techiecom... The DSLR market is exploding, and Pentax is making waves with the K100D and K10D. The K10D is selling substantially above Pentax's forecasts. I can't see any logical reasons for Hoya to walk away from that business when it's being handed to them on a plate. DSLRs have been around for years, and Pentax has not carved much of a marketing niche for themselves. Their investors have been pressing management to make some changes. Well, this is it. Pentax is not allowing itself to be gulped down by Hoya because they have glowing prospects of future success, you know. This is an admission that either management or the investors have diminished faith in the company to prosper in the future. Companies don't sell out (or, excuse me "merge") for no reason. And sure Hoya will try to reassure buyers that Pentax will survive into the future, now that Hoya has assumed responsibility for Pentax. But the real question is whether serious amateurs will commit to a camera system that may or may not be around for very long. I'm betting that they won't. If and when I ever buy a DSLR, it will be a Nikon or a Canon. I am looking for long-term reliability in terms of upgrades, parts and service, and I don't want to be another Minolta customer. AND, I'm betting that a lot more of us will feel the same way, and will decline buying Pentax cameras and lenses--especially those that don't already have an investment in Pentax gear. Much as I appreciate my legacy Pentax gear, I'll be the first to admit that Pentax never did have the depth of product line that Canon or Nikon had, and that Pentax essentially abandoned the Pro market when they withdrew the LX--maybe even before then, as they never came out with LX-II or LX-III. Pentax made a good line of MF gear for pros, but those that shot 35mm were left hanging. That did not affect me, as an amateur, but if I made my living with photo gear I could never have remained with Pentax, no matter how good some few of their lenses might have been. One cannot sustain a professional career on just three FA-Limited lenses. When I look back on it, Pentax's glory days ended when they withdrew the Spotmatic from production. They blamed the need to go to a bayonet mount--which was understandable--but they came out with a series of uninspiring camera models, most of which were clearly oriented toward the consumer. I used to think that Pentax's Achilles Heel was its reluctance to advertise, but I think now that they just didn't have their priorities straight. Nikon had an excellent support network in place, where one could rent lenses and even get loaner cameras if theirs were being repaired. Pentax had nothing like that. Again, for me, as an amateur, it didn't matter, but news photographers and photojournalists took one look at the differences between support from Nikon and Canon versus support from Pentax, and the choice was clear. Pentax made an excellent line of lenses in the early 70s--the SMC Takumars--and I own 19 of them. But they cannot be sent back for repairs if they malfunction, and Pentax never did make replacement lenses that had the mechanical build quality of those legendary screwmounts. Twenty years after withdrawing those lenses from their catalog, the digital revolution took place--and Pentax was at the back of the line. As for their current digital offerings, made in their new factory in Vietnam--all I can say is that it takes more than one or two models to make a reputation. I think that, for Pentax, it was a matter of being "a day late and a dollar short," when they finally got around to introducing their latest models--and the bulk of camera enthusiasts had already cast their respective lots with Canon or Nikon. It was a nice run. Sorry to see Pentax shrivel up, but I am convinced that their days of being any kind of significant force in photography are limited. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pelican swallows pigeon | Daniel Silevitch | Digital Photography | 31 | October 31st 06 05:04 PM |
Hoya HMC CP filter | Eydz | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | October 22nd 06 01:21 AM |
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 |
Hoya Filters UV(0) OR UV(N) | ianr | Digital Photography | 0 | January 27th 05 10:31 PM |