Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 60872	2005-08-16 07:14:00	Carless Days.	Elephant (599)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
381636	2005-08-18 04:20:00	It's coming, sooner than you might think. Soon all cell phones will be required to have GPS chips (in the US first, probably) on the pretext that this will enable emergency services to locate people immediately when they call "911". And, of course, this won't be abused. ;) Soon visitors to the US will not only be fingerprinted, they'll have to have a cell phone with GPS, in case they overthrow the Constutution. Brazil still grows crops to produce ethanol to fuel cars. They build cars to run on ethanol. NZ grows some crops to produce industrial ethanol. That is put in vodka and gin to fuel car drivers. London has a "congestion tax" by which car drivers entering the central area pay (I think) £5 per day. This was, as usual, going to cause the end of civilisation as we know it. It didn't. The basic problem with building more and more motorways so people can get from point A to point B with maximum speed is "what do you do with the cars when they get to B?". Better motorways (to stop congestion) won't save Auckland or Wellington. For me, every day is a "Careless" day. I have a bicycle. I must admit that after i wrote what I did, I realised that with cellphones, most people carry around some sort of "tracking device" which allows identification of where you are. I guess a Minority Report type society isn't as far away as it sounds! Lo.	Lohsing (219)
381637	2005-08-18 06:29:00	As I said, acceleration is another story - and you're absolutely right - accelerating quickly is not legal (though sustained loss of traction sometimes is - depends on whether you're aged between 15 and 24, and driving a Mazda Familia DOHC turbo or similar) . Funny though, because it seems to me that if you hit a pedestrian accelerating from 0 - 50km/h in the space of two seconds (for example), you would cause more damage than if the car took 2-4x the time to reach the same speed . (there's probably a formula relating speed, acceleration and force, but it's been far too long since I studied physics to recall the relationships in a formula) . But I'm not pretending for one moment that this idea (or any idea discussed in this sub-thread) could work - what I'm interested in is the justification for cars that can travel at 200km/h etc . . beyond the standard "freedom" arguments (I'm not denying the exhiliration of travelling at speed) . To say that better acceleration is found by increasing the top-end speed of cars may be correct from a technical perspection - though I wonder if that approach is the most efficient . . . I'm not entirely convinced that a car manufacturer couldn't build a car that accelerated adequately, but went no faster than, say, 120km/h, rather than relying on the total enigine output to provide the muscle in the front end . . . [rant ends] Fully possible . But such a car would do about 5,000rpm on the motorway and do about 5mpg . . .	george12 (7)
381638	2005-08-19 03:01:00	Fully possible . But such a car would do about 5,000rpm on the motorway and do about 5mpg . . . A few misunderstandings here . The damage you do when you hit anything depends on the speed you are doing when you hit . The time it took you to gain that speed is irrelevant . I had a good old BSA 500 single motorbike . It had so much torque at low revs that it would out-accelerate most cars . The gearing was such that at the maximum 5500 rpm, it would have done 55 mph . In first gear . It didn't (or I didn't) have an extreme top speed . The way I rode it, it was very economical . I imagine with modern engine control systems, a single cylinder engine like that would run a pretty good small car with quite acceptable performance, and a very good fuel consumption . And a top speed of about 100 km/h .	Graham L (2)
381639	2005-08-19 03:06:00	My quad does 110km/h at 12000rpm . . . . . Dead slow top end, But hella fast coming through the gears . . . . . . .	Metla (12)
381640	2005-08-19 07:06:00	My prime mover is very slow, less than 1km per hour. Acceleration is non existant.Why crippled old legs of course. PJ :D :D :D	Poppa John (284)
381641	2005-08-19 07:51:00	My prime mover is very slow, less than 1km per hour. Acceleration is non existant.Why crippled old legs of course. PJ :D :D :D Thats no way to talk about MA! I am sure she is way quicker than that PJ. Now you, on the other hand may be quite slow, but I would not quite have described you as "prime".... As for carless days, from memory I had 2 stickers, one a Tuesday and the other was an "X" (which meant exempt), so it really did not have much effect.	godfather (25)
381642	2005-08-19 11:39:00	As for carless days, from memory I had 2 stickers, one a Tuesday and the other was an "X" (which meant exempt), so it really did not have much effect. Aha. So you've had this "Godfather" thing going for quite a while eh. ;) La Crusade Nostra. :eek:	Winston001 (3612)
381643	2005-08-19 13:55:00	A few misunderstandings here . The damage you do when you hit anything depends on the speed you are doing when you hit . The time it took you to gain that speed is irrelevant . I had a good old BSA 500 single motorbike . It had so much torque at low revs that it would out-accelerate most cars . The gearing was such that at the maximum 5500 rpm, it would have done 55 mph . In first gear . It didn't (or I didn't) have an extreme top speed . The way I rode it, it was very economical . I imagine with modern engine control systems, a single cylinder engine like that would run a pretty good small car with quite acceptable performance, and a very good fuel consumption . And a top speed of about 100 km/h . When I said fully possible I wasn't talking about the time-to-accelerate thing, I was talking about a car with Ok accel but a top speed of 100kmh . I know acceleration is irrelevant to damage caused (unless you keep your foot hard down right through the person of course . . . . ) . But I stand by saying that you can't make a car that mechanically has a top speed of <130 and still acceptable acceleration and gas milage . Say you have a car engine, you want it to rev at 2000rpm for optimal milage, and you want it to do 0-100 in 15 seconds . Doing the latter takes about 60kw of power . If the car has a redline of 6000rpm, then the gear-ratio-wise top speed is 300km/h (ie, rpm is NOT the limiting factor) . But obviously it won't have the torque up there to do it . Problem is, to make it have a top speed of say 120 (2400rpm), you would need an unmakably narrow torque band in which there was plenty between 1000-2400 rpm and almost none above that . Not really doable . Or are you saying your bike is like that? Didn't really get what you were saying there . Edit: Construct using metals that shatter when spinning above 2500rpm . . . .	george12 (7)
381644	2005-08-19 20:36:00	Sounds like you are describing a Ford Anglia . The gearbox was what you used for acceleration and the lack of power limited the speed in top to about 70mph . Most cars like the Anglia would often do a higher speed in third than top . I don't think George's Toyota with 60 odd horses would reach 200 kph either regardless of theoretical gearing . It all comes down to wind (resistance that is) .	PaulD (232)
1 2 3 4 5 6