A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old December 26th 06, 07:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Frank ess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,232
Default End of an Era

J. Clarke wrote:
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.


Just to clarify a bit:

In ancient history, NASCAR racers were actual stock cars, modified a
little or a lot, for racing and safety. Today's most-known NASCAR
"stock" cars are scratch-built for racing and safety. So you can't
"mod" your stock car to comply with any requirements. Unless it's like
one acquaintance told another about his racing car that wasn't fast
enough: "Jack up the hood ornament and drive a better car under it".

Thirty years ago in the middle of another safety and fuel economy
"crisis" I advocated NASCAR changing its formula to zero-injury and 25
MPG in a 2700-pound car. That would have transferred readily to street
use and been of real benefit. They paid no attention. Where would we
be today, if they had? Same place, give or take an SUV generation or
two, I bet.

--
Frank ess

  #72  
Old December 26th 06, 08:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Laurence Payne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 332
Default End of an Era

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:38:55 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:


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.


Well, sort of.
The more you drive, the more experience you get, which lowers your
rate; try comparing an 18-year old with a 40-year old, bith driving
since age 16, both driving the same number of miles per year in the
same market.
As for the pilot, the real danger is on the ground; while any flight
might be any number of hours, there's only two ground contacts:
takeoff and landing (or crashing). So, the more you fly (the more
hours), it's reasonable to assume the number of grounds contacts
remain at two per flight, but the hours will go up with more
experience.



So what's your point? DO American insurers charge more for
high-mileage drivers? (UK insurers don't.) DO they take account
of years of experience, or just of age? DOES a pilot who flies more
miles get a lower rate? More miles per year, or more total miles in
his log book? Does more miles equate to longer journeys, fewer
landings? Why? Wouldn't it just as likely mean similar trips but
more of them?
  #73  
Old December 26th 06, 08:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Laurence Payne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 332
Default End of an Era

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:39:50 -0800, Ken Lucke
wrote:

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.


How do you read that? As an ironic reflection that times change? And
that rhetoric shouldn't be TOO minutely analysed, once it's done its
job? Or as something else?
  #74  
Old December 26th 06, 08:50 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default End of an Era

Bill Funk wrote:

Well, sort of.
The more you drive, the more experience you get, which lowers your
rate; try comparing an 18-year old with a 40-year old, bith driving
since age 16, both driving the same number of miles per year in the
same market.
As for the pilot, the real danger is on the ground; while any flight
might be any number of hours, there's only two ground contacts:
takeoff and landing (or crashing). So, the more you fly (the more
hours), it's reasonable to assume the number of grounds contacts
remain at two per flight, but the hours will go up with more
experience.


Commercial pilots not only rely on experience but:

-are professionals

-operate in two man crews (4 man on very long flights, with a crew
switch hours before landing). The crew operate as a team where an
action or decision can always be questioned by the other.

-have recurrent training (every 6 months) in normal and emergency
procedures

-many serve as instructors over part of their career and that helps
maintain an edge as well.

Most automobile drivers who take formal training lose most of their
defensive driving habits within a year and develop bad habits which
stick with them for a lifetime. In many cases they pass on their
"experience" to their children. It seems to me that everyone should be
obliged to take recurrent driving training at least every few years. I
like see how bad a driver I am and pick up on lots errors that I make
(forgetting the turn signal, not paying strict attention to who has the
priority at a stop, less than 'stopped' stops, passing on the right,
etc.... ) I'm willing to admit my errors and try to drive better, but
most drivers have a misplaced 'pride' in their role as a driver and
can't admit to their faults. This is deadly.

Quebec, always a bit wild on the roads (Similar to Boston and
Philadelphia), strikes me as increasingly bad in the past years. I link
this to our no-fault insurance system which keeps rates fairly low
(compared to Ontario for example) even for repeat accident drivers. For
a brand new $30K car I pay less than $700 / year (no accidents/claims in
over 7 years helps). In Ontario it would have been over $2K. With
accidents, easilly over $5K.

While I enjoy our low rates I think I'd rather pay $2K / year and start
taming the dangerous idiots that we have. (Actually the government
insurance portion of our motorcycle licences is about to increase hugely
because of the increasing motorcycle accident rate over the past 10 years.)

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #75  
Old December 26th 06, 09:06 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default End of an Era

J. Clarke wrote:


You want to run your car on alcohol, find a drag racer and ask him to
rechip it for you.

No tricks, no massive government-funded research program, no new
principles of science, just change the damned chip.


1- you need an oxygen sensor of the right range to detect the fuel mix
2- you need injectors of slightly larger diameter
3- s/w changes (re-chipping)

For the avoidance of all confusion, item 3 above does not fix items 1 &
2 above.

The US Auto industry up until the end of 2005 had produced over 6
million vehicles capable of burning E85 (85% Ethanol / 15% gasoline).
For the later years there is no difference in price for most E85
compliant vehicles v. non-compliant.

You want everybody to run alcohol, double the price of gas and halve the
price of alcohol and you'll see it happen. The trick isn't making cars


The US governement subsidizes Ethanol to the tune of $0.51 per gallon.
Despite this, the price of E85 is only a few cents cheaper than
gasoline. The problem is that E85 delivers 20 - 25% less mileage.

In 2005, the US Ethanol industry pumped out over 600M gallons ... most
of which was consumed by the gasoline companies for markets where a
certain % of the summer gasoline must be ethanol (5 - 15% IIRC; this
does not require a change to the engine).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #76  
Old December 26th 06, 09:07 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default End of an Era

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

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.



Don't bitch about it since all these profits go to subsidize your
prescription medication program for your residents. We get screwed at
the pump as well as the pharmacy counter.


Don't assume anything you wrote above about oil profits subsidizing
anything in Canada. Only the slightest amount of the taxes on the
profits finds its way into anything other than government waste.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #77  
Old December 26th 06, 10:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,690
Default End of an Era

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:51:43 -0800, Frank ess wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
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.


Just to clarify a bit:

In ancient history, NASCAR racers were actual stock cars, modified a
little or a lot, for racing and safety. Today's most-known NASCAR
"stock" cars are scratch-built for racing and safety. So you can't
"mod" your stock car to comply with any requirements. Unless it's like
one acquaintance told another about his racing car that wasn't fast
enough: "Jack up the hood ornament and drive a better car under it".


No you can't "mod" your stock car to meet NASCAR requirements, but you
can mod it meet the requirements of NHRA, SCCA, or any of several other
sanctioning bodies that still run modified production cars.

Thirty years ago in the middle of another safety and fuel economy
"crisis" I advocated NASCAR changing its formula to zero-injury and 25
MPG in a 2700-pound car. That would have transferred readily to street
use and been of real benefit. They paid no attention. Where would we be
today, if they had? Same place, give or take an SUV generation or two, I
bet.


Not sure that zero injury in a 2500 pound race car would have transferred
to street use, unless the doors opened and closed and when opened the
doorway was unobstructed.

In any case NASCAR is in business to make money, not to address social
problems.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  #78  
Old December 26th 06, 10:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,361
Default End of an Era


"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
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.


I think I would put up with most of all that stuff if the highway patrol
would let me drive 175 mph everywhere I went, and my vehicle was capable of
it! - In general, I do like the "cage" idea and technology.....Protect the
important things....The passengers, and let the devil take all the
rest......


  #79  
Old December 26th 06, 10:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,361
Default End of an Era


"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"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


Depends on where you live, and what you do, or like to do. It would be very
difficult for me to do without a car here in Salem, Oregon. We don't even
have a decent bus line that goes by my house, and most of the busses in town
stop running at 10:00 PM every day. I have to go to the next town North of
me once a week for band practice, and the next town South of me for a music
lesson every week.....Both places virtually inaccessible without my own car.
If I had to do without a car, I would have to move to the heart of a very
large city just to be able to continue my two principal hobbies.
(photography and trumpet playing) And even then, getting to and from gigs
would be very problematical. - And then, there are our four cats.......


  #80  
Old December 26th 06, 10:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,361
Default End of an Era


"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
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.


Yes.....I don't see any real problems, myself......Getting rid of the
gas-guzzlers might be a traumatic experience for some, but I'm sure there
will be a number of other alternatives on the horizon. I see us as being
individually transportation orientated, but not necessarily gasoline
dependent as others seem to see us. When the gas runs out, we will just take
to electric vehicles or whatever we have to do. But crowding together into
busses or trains just isn't in the cards, and I just don't see that it
should have to be. We don't think that way, and our life style isn't
designed around that sort of thing. IOW, whatever they come up with, you can
be sure of one thing.....One person will be able to leave his house in it,
and drive it to wherever he wants to go without having to be dependent on
anyone else in order to go there. Whether it burns alcohol, or peanut
shells, or runs through storage batteries, or picks up energy from the road
or whatever, it will be a one man, one destination at a time vehicle.....Of
that, you can be sure.......


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pelican swallows pigeon Daniel Silevitch Digital Photography 31 October 31st 06 06:04 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 11:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.