|
General » rec.autos.driving » Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793290] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 09:35 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Also the Popular Science article on the Aptera only claims 300 MPG in any
> case, so V-for-Vacuous' claims are specious at best.
Popular Science... Ahahahahahaha.... Built your vacuum powered Flying Saucer
yet?
What a worthless magazine.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793345 ] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 21:58 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Also the Popular Science article on the Aptera only claims 300 MPG in any
>>case, so V-for-Vacuous' claims are specious at best.
>
>
> Popular Science... Ahahahahahaha.... Built your vacuum powered Flying Saucer
> yet?
>
> What a worthless magazine.
>
>
>
Got a better cite, assmunch?
It just so happens that I was given a stack of old PS's including the
one with the article on the Aptera about a week before the thread that
you've been blathering in, so the info. was fresh in my mind.
Other cites have been posted confirming that info, and from their own
web site
http://aptera.com/about.php
the prototype achieved 230 MPG, and I assume that is
full-charge-to-empty so is artificially inflated. Got any data that
disagrees? didn't think so. Now fuck off now, we're trying to maintain
an adult standard of discourse.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793357 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 01:23 |
|
>> Popular Science... Ahahahahahaha.... Built your vacuum powered Flying
>> Saucer
>> yet?
>>
>> What a worthless magazine.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Got a better cite, assmunch?
You don't seem to understand the rules Nate, my ignorant little Shit
Sucker.
It's your responsibility to provide reliable refereences to back up your
assertions. It's not my repsonsibility.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> It just so happens that I was given a stack of old PS's including the one
> with the article on the Aptera about a week before the thread that you've
> been blathering in, so the info. was fresh in my mind.
Looks cool. Like one of those vacuum powered personal UFO's that Popular
Science used to promote.
"Build your own UFO."
> Now fuck off now, we're trying to maintain an adult standard of discourse.
Popular Science. Ahahahahahahaha..
Now Popular Science for Kids was captivating. But only when Elisha
Cuthbert was a co-host.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793363 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 01:31 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>>Popular Science... Ahahahahahaha.... Built your vacuum powered Flying
>>>Saucer
>>>yet?
>>>
>>>What a worthless magazine.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Got a better cite, assmunch?
>
>
> You don't seem to understand the rules Nate, my ignorant little Shit
> Sucker.
>
> It's your responsibility to provide reliable refereences to back up your
> assertions. It's not my repsonsibility.
I just did, and you conveniently snipped it. Now it's up to you to
prove your assertion that a 2000 MPG car is practical. Over to you.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793373 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 02:56 |
|
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>> It's your responsibility to provide reliable refereences to back up
>> your assertions. It's not my repsonsibility.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I just did, and you conveniently snipped it.
Sorry Shit Sucker. Popular science isn't a reliable reference. It's
written for mindless gear heads who think they are learning something about
science, but whom in reality don't have a clue as to what science is, or how
it works.
Popular science is for mindless wannabe's like yourself.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Now it's up to you to prove your assertion that a 2000 MPG car is
> practical.
That assertion is yours - my lying little Mother Fucker - not mine.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793383 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 03:14 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>
>>> It's your responsibility to provide reliable refereences to back up
>>>your assertions. It's not my repsonsibility.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>I just did, and you conveniently snipped it.
>
>
> Sorry Shit Sucker. Popular science isn't a reliable reference. It's
> written for mindless gear heads who think they are learning something about
> science, but whom in reality don't have a clue as to what science is, or how
> it works.
>
> Popular science is for mindless wannabe's like yourself.
>
What about Aptera's own web site?
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Now it's up to you to prove your assertion that a 2000 MPG car is
>>practical.
>
>
> That assertion is yours - my lying little Mother Fucker - not mine.
I wouldn't fuck your mother with your dick.
and you lie:
weiej.4221$jU1.3829 [at] read1.cgocable.net
"The existacne of a 2000+ vehicle illustrates how detached from reality
that KKKonservative Liar is."
Either you're implying that there is some practical, usable 2000+ MPG
car out there, or... well, I'm not sure what else that sentence could
mean. Also, we can infer from the use of inflammatory language like
"KKKonservative Liar" that you are a) a liberal and b) too dumb to come
up with a cogent argument, so you resort to ad hominem.
Have a shitty day,
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793419 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 10:36 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> What about Aptera's own web site?
I find it a bit short on details. But that is typical of sites that have
something to sell that doesn't yet exist.
I wish them luck. but am sad that they will fail so badly.
>> That assertion is yours - my lying little Mother Fucker - not mine.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I wouldn't fuck your mother with your dick.
Let me rephrase so that your small brain can comprehend....
The assertion is yours - you lying little boy who fucks his own mother. It
was not my assertion.
..
Do you understand now?
> weiej.4221$jU1.3829 [at] read1.cgocable.net
> "The existacne of a 2000+ vehicle illustrates how detached from reality
> that KKKonservative Liar is."
Yup, it most certainly does. The claim was that such a vehicle couldn't
exist in principle - as it's existance would violate basic engine design
principles.
Well, such a vehicle exists, and that makes him (and you) either a liar,
or a fool.
Which is it Nate? Are you a liar? Or are you a fool? Both perhaps?
Now go ask your mother little boy. She knows what you are.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793771 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 15:18 |
|
On Feb 10, 12:42=A0am, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > It most certainly is not, your babble notwithstanding.
>
> =A0 Clearly it is.
Prove it. Give dimensions, weights, and passenger compartment volumes
for the apetera and the Mini.
>
> >> Have you managed to learn some grade school physics yet Nate?
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > Yes, and high school physics, college level physics, and a BSME (that's
> > Mechanical Engineering to you, mister) as well.
>
> =A0 And you still don't know that F=3Dma.
I most certainly do know that F=3Dma, and more importantly, I know the
significance of each of those terms, which you clearly do not.
>
> =A0 The fact that you don't know that Force is what drives Acceleration, =
=A0is
> either an indicaiton of a worthless education or a worthless lie on your
> part.
>
> =A0 Which is it?
What? Could you please form a clear English sentence?
>
> >> =A0 When are you going to retract your claim that in an accident Force
> >> isn't important, but acceleration is?
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > I'm not going to, because I'm right and you're 100% wrong.
>
> =A0 Your right that in a collison force isn't important, acceleration is?
>
> =A0 Ahahahahahahahahahahaah...................
>
> =A0 Tell us my little incompetent. =A0Does acceleration produce force, or =
does
> force produce acceleration.
>
> =A0 Ahahahahahahahahahah.............. =A0Engineer...
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha........
It depends on the situation.
still and all, force is what destroys the front of your car.
Acceleration is what destroys the passengers. You have yet to tell me
why I shouldn't consider the peak acceleration experienced in a crash
to be the most important parameter, although it's clear that your
skull has experienced some fairly high deceleration as a small child.
Now go away before I mock you some more.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793898 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 06:22 |
|
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> Prove it. Give dimensions, weights, and passenger compartment volumes
> for the apetera and the Mini.
Sorry, that's your job, not mine.
> And you still don't know that F=ma.
> I most certainly do know that F=ma, and more importantly, I know the
> significance of each of those terms, which you clearly do not.
And that's why you know that in a collision beteen two objects "Force
doesn't matter, acceleration does."
Ahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793931 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 16:10 |
|
On Feb 11, 12:22=A0am, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "N8N" <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Prove it. =A0Give dimensions, weights, and passenger compartment volumes=
> > for the apetera and the Mini.
>
> =A0 Sorry, that's your job, not mine.
I'm not the one making wild, outlandish claims that run contrary to
common sense and simple visual observation.
>
> > And you still don't know that F=3Dma.
> > I most certainly do know that F=3Dma, and more importantly, I know the
> > significance of each of those terms, which you clearly do not.
>
> =A0 And that's why you know that in a collision beteen two objects "Force
> doesn't matter, acceleration does."
Exactly.
To break it down into words of few syllables, force is important at
the interface between the front of your car and whatever you just ran
into. Acceleration is important when determining the effect of that
application of force (actually dissipation of momentum, but the mass
terms tend to more or less cancel each other out) on your brain,
internal organs, etc. - in other words, when your car comes to a rapid
stop due to a collision with an immovable (or even similarly massive)
object, your body decelerates approximately at the same rate as the
seat you're sitting in, seeing as you're strapped in by a seatbelt and
possibly farther restrained by an airbag. The meaty bits *inside*
your body still have momentum of their own, however, and the main
cause of serious injury in a crash, unless the crash is so severe as
to involve actual intrusion into the passenger compartment, is due to
bruising of the brain, heart, etc. due to their tendency to continue
traveling forward and slamming into your skull, rib cage, etc.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #794446 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 21:08 |
|
On Feb 15, 2:11=A0pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > Nowhere near as widely, inexpensively, or of a size required to power a
> > vehicle.
>
> =A0 Sorry, that isn't a sentence.
>
> V for Vendicar wrote:
> >>>> =A0The weight of batteries required is no more than about three times=
the
> >>>> weight of gasoline carried.
> >> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
> >>>Cite? =A0(I can't WAIT for this one.)
> V for Vendicare wrote:
> >> Gasoline 45 megajouls per Kilogram.
> >> Lithium Ion 0.6 megajoules per kilogram
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > Oh, no, you can't do that. =A0Unless you can show that a car-sized LiIon=
or
> > other style high-density battery pack is available at a reasonable price=
..
>
> =A0 Price has nothing to do with the weight required.
It has everything to do with the ability to obtain those batteries.
>
> =A0 Duuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbboooooooooooo oooooo
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > Keep in mind that prices for a conventional fuel tank
>
> ......
>
> =A0 =A0Ssssssssssttttttttttttttuuuuuuuuuuuuuppppppppppppiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii=
iddddddd=ADddddddd
>
> V for Vendicar wrote:
> >> Gasoline engine efficiency 25%
> >> Electric motor efficience 95%
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > Why not use a Diesel? =A0and I would say for a newer vehicle closer to 3=
0%
> > but never mind that for now.
>
> =A0 1.2 * nothing is still nothing.
>
> >> Air resistsnce redction (40mph) =3D 2.25
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > Nope, can't do that. =A0Vehicle has to be compatible with existing
> > infrastructure.
>
> =A0 It wouild be, and in short order all highways will be 40mph anyhow.
False.
>
> >> Rolling resistance reduction due to a reduction in car size by 50%, =A0=
15%
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > Nope, people won't buy a car half the size of what they're driving now.
>
> =A0 Then they will walk.
Or simply retain their existing vehicles.
>
> >> Acceleration requirements reduce by 50% when mass is reduced by 50%
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > Can't do that either. =A0If for no other reason than you *won't* reduce =
mass
> > because the batteries will make the vehicle weigh MORE than the comparab=
le
> > gasoline vehicle.
>
> =A0 Nope, as the following calculation shows.
>
> >> (0.6 * =A095/25 * 2.25 * 2 * 1.15) * FACTOR =3D 45
>
> >> Fractor =3D 3.81
>
> >> Woo Hooo.....
>
What the hell does that show? That you pulled a bunch of numbers out
of your ass?
The FACT is that you can't build an electric car with a reasonable
range that does not weigh the same as or more than a comparable
gasoline engined car.
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > In other words, you're comparing a practical yet not-very-efficient
> > gasoline car to a hypothetical impractical, vaguely car-like machine tha=
t
> > uses super batteries that haven't been invented yet.
>
> =A0 What makes you think that Lithium Ion batteries haven't been invented =
yet?
>
> =A0 Snicker...
>
They have been, but your "calculations" do not use the energy density
numbers for currently available LiIons. Mine do.
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > let's just handwave and say that an electric motor is about 3x as
> > efficient as a gasoline engine (fair approximation.) =A0Thus from the
> > numbers above, to store the same amount of energy as gasoline, you need
> > 450/3 or *ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY* times the mass in batteries as you woul=
d
> > for an equivalent gas tank (neglecting the mass of the tank itself, whic=
h
> > is negligible) if you use lead acid, or let's say you spent the big buck=
s
> > for LiIon, that would still be *SIXTY* times the mass of gasoline.
>
> =A0 Yup. =A0The energy density of petrol is quite high.
>
> =A0 =A0But that won't matter when you can't have any.
In other words, you have no argument so you resort to invective, as
usual. Typical idiot/troll tactic.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #794642 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 09:11 |
|
N8N <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>> > Oh, no, you can't do that. Unless you can show that a car-sized LiIon or
>> > other style high-density battery pack is available at a reasonable price.
>>
>> Price has nothing to do with the weight required.
>
>It has everything to do with the ability to obtain those batteries.
I got all confused until I realized V had been granted my highest
filter classification. The filter reason of course is stupidity
compounded by willful ignorance, the filter method, normally 'mark
read' was for him changed to 'delete'. His sentence above "Price has
nothing to do with the weight required." is a perfect example of that.
First, he posits that battery weight has nothing to do with price
which is factually untrue and in only a few seconds can be seen to be
so. The more the vehicle weighs, the more energy is needed to
motivate it. The most expensive batteries are those with the highest
power to weight ratio. These facts are not only well known, one would
have to be stupid and/or insane and/or willfully in denial of simple
physical facts and logic in order to posit that "Price has nothing to
do with the weight required."
That V might have some comfort, Automobile magazine this month has
given a very favorable "WOOHOO!" sort of review to the world's first
all electric sports car, the Tesla. That he might stop whining about
the EV-1, the Chevy Volt, a car designed primarily as an electric
vehicle with IC backup is expected to go on sale as early as 2010 to
the general public. The General is expected to offer different
versions which will provide IC backup by gasoline, E85, pure ethanol,
diesel and/or biodiesel over the next decade thereafter.
Unlike today's hybrids which are essentially traditional IC powered
vehicles with electric power added to increase efficiency, the Volt
will be followed by GM models specifically designed for electric
motivation with IC as a backup or augment. IC backup is essential
today simply because of charge times and fuel supply. On a trip from
Miami to Savannah, what you gonna do for fuel with your electric? It
might someday become common for travelers to hook up at restaurants or
motels along the way that offer electric charging stations. Employers
may someday consider changing stations in the employee or even
customer parking lots a perfectly ordinary and unremarkable thing.
But until then, the all electric car will continue to be a rarity that
meets the needs of only a limited number of individuals so consumers
will have to support the more successful stopgap products made
available in the meantime.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #794721 ] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 16:45 |
|
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> I'm not the one making wild, outlandish claims that run contrary to
> common sense and simple visual observation.
That is your assertion. But after being asked repeatedly to provide
evidence you continue to fail to do so.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #794723 ] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 14:19 |
|
On Feb 18, 10:45=A0am, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "N8N" <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > I'm not the one making wild, outlandish claims that run contrary to
> > common sense and simple visual observation.
>
> =A0 That is your assertion. =A0But after being asked repeatedly to provide=
> evidence you continue to fail to do so.
Look at a Smart. Look at an Aptera. that should be all the evidence
you need.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #794754 ] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 22:43 |
|
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> Look at a Smart. Look at an Aptera. that should be all the evidence
> you need.
The smart electrics should sell well here.
What happens in AmeriKKKa is irrelevant to the world.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #794836 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 17:29 |
|
> Price has nothing to do with the weight required.
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> It has everything to do with the ability to obtain those batteries.
It's a factor, but not a particularly important one. Lead acid batteries
weigh much more than Lithium Ion batteries for example, but cost
significantly less. The engineering produces weight and volume limitations.
Raising battery costs doesn't reduce or remove those engineering
limitations.
> It wouild be, and in short order all highways will be 40mph anyhow.
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> False.
That speed will half fuel consumption and dramatically improve safety,
allow the use of alternate materials in automobile construction and provide
a host of additional benefits, like speeding the transition away from human
drivers to complete computer controlled navigation.
> > Nope, people won't buy a car half the size of what they're driving now.
>
> Then they will walk.
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> Or simply retain their existing vehicles.
You mean the ones that are designed to fall apart?
Good luck there John Boy.
> > Can't do that either. If for no other reason than you *won't* reduce
> > mass
> > because the batteries will make the vehicle weigh MORE than the
> > comparable
> > gasoline vehicle.
>
> Nope, as the following calculation shows.
>
> >> (0.6 * 95/25 * 2.25 * 2 * 1.15) * FACTOR = 45
>
> >> Fractor = 3.81
>
> >> Woo Hooo.....
>
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> What the hell does that show? That you pulled a bunch of numbers out
> of your ass?
It show what the practical size and power requirements are for the final
generation of automobiles.
If you can't follow the simple math then that is your failure, not mine.
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> The FACT is that you can't build an electric car with a reasonable
> range that does not weigh the same as or more than a comparable
> gasoline engined car.
The above calculation shows that you can.
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > In other words, you're comparing a practical yet not-very-efficient
> > gasoline car to a hypothetical impractical, vaguely car-like machine
> > that
> > uses super batteries that haven't been invented yet.
V for Vendicar wrote:
> What makes you think that Lithium Ion batteries haven't been invented yet?
> Snicker...
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
> They have been, but your "calculations" do not use the energy density
> numbers for currently available LiIons. Mine do.
That's odd, because the mine clearly do. I guess you didn't read them and
simply chose to ask what they were, and now are complaining that they don't
include a converstion factor that they include.
DUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMBBBBBBBBBBBBB
> Yup. The energy density of petrol is quite high.
>
> But that won't matter when you can't have any.
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
> In other words, you have no argument so you resort to invective, as
> usual. Typical idiot/troll tactic.
Telling you that you can't have any gasoline isn't invective John Boy.
It's your future.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #794893 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 23:11 |
|
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> I'm not the one making wild, outlandish claims that run contrary to
> common sense and simple visual observation.
Naaa, you just claim that AmeriKKKan built cars last 40 years and everyone
can keep theirs on the road by living in scrap yards.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhh
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #794926 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 21:15 |
|
On Feb 19, 5:11=A0pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "N8N" <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > I'm not the one making wild, outlandish claims that run contrary to
> > common sense and simple visual observation.
>
> Naaa, you just claim that AmeriKKKan built cars last 40 years and everyone=
> can keep theirs on the road by living in scrap yards.
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhh
I didn't say all my cars were American, but yes, with proper
maintenance there's no reason that a good car can't last for a very
long time. And there's also no reason to pay new-parts prices for non-
wear parts. And I don't hardly consider stopping by a junkyard,
picking my parts up at the counter and then leaving again "living in
scrap yards."
Again, how is paying for new parts more environmentally friendly than
getting all of the use you can out of parts that have already been
produced? You have all kinds of weird ideas.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #794955 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 23:10 |
|
N8N wrote:
> "V-for-Vendicar" wrote:
> > "N8N" <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > > I'm not the one making wild, outlandish claims that run contrary to
> > > common sense and simple visual observation.
> >
> > That is your assertion. But after being asked repeatedly to provide
> > evidence you continue to fail to do so.
>
> Look at a Smart. Look at an Aptera. that should be all the evidence
> you need.
The Smart is a viable car. The Aptera is a joke.
Graham
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #794979 ] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 04:52 |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations [at] hotmail.com>
> The Smart is a viable car. The Aptera is a joke.
The Aptera shows what is required for having a minimum drag coefficient.
Smart shows a practical side for a well designed 2 or 4 person commuter
vehicle.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #795010 ] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 06:27 |
|
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> I didn't say all my cars were American, but yes, with proper
> maintenance there's no reason that a good car can't last for a very
> long time.
That's absolutely right. If you want to live your life maintaining your
car, then your car will have a longer and better life than you will, and
will be happier than your children for whom you couldn't afforrd a college
education as a result of maintaining the greasy shit box.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #795030 ] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 03:58 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>I didn't say all my cars were American, but yes, with proper
>>maintenance there's no reason that a good car can't last for a very
>>long time.
>
>
> That's absolutely right. If you want to live your life maintaining your
> car, then your car will have a longer and better life than you will, and
> will be happier than your children for whom you couldn't afforrd a college
> education as a result of maintaining the greasy shit box.
>
You make it sound like it's such a chore. It isn't.
Do you do any maintenance on things around the house? Flush the
sediment out of your water heaters, check the anodes every year? Maybe
poke your head in the furnace to make sure nothing's amiss? Change or
clean the filters as appropriate? Dust and vacuum occasionally? It's
about that difficult to maintain a vehicle properly. Less, if you pay
someone to do it (not at Jiffy Screw though, a real repair shop.)
I'm not sure how much less maintenance you think an electric vehicle
will require, but only the drivetrain related parts will change. You'll
still need to regularly check the tires, bearings, suspension, brakes,
etc. and remember that "lubed for life" is a nicer way of saying "finite
lifespan." Grease fittings are a Good Thing(tm)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #795045 ] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 08:33 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Do you do any maintenance on things around the house?
Yup.
> Flush the sediment out of your water heaters
Nope
> check the anodes every year?
Nope nope
> Maybe poke your head in the furnace to make sure nothing's amiss?
Nope
> Change or clean the filters as appropriate?
Doesn't have any.
> Dust and vacuum occasionally?
Very
> It's about that difficult to maintain a vehicle properly.
Nonsense. My furnace doesn't have moving parts exposed to road grime and
isn't designed to fall apart once exposed.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I'm not sure how much less maintenance you think an electric vehicle will
> require, but only the drivetrain related parts will change.
The cooling system will change - generally won't need much of one, and the
alternator will vanish as will all the interconnecting belts. Steering pump
will be electric - no need for belts there either.
No differential, No physical interconnects for shifting gears or the
accelerator, or the break, or steering.
All different. And of course no exhaust system.
this means that the entire underside of the car can be (as it can be now)
encapsulated and kept completly unexposed to road crime and corrosive
materials.
Maintainance will be keeping the coolant fluids topped up, and greasing the
suspension.
You'll
> still need to regularly check the tires, bearings, suspension, brakes,
> etc. and remember that "lubed for life" is a nicer way of saying "finite
> lifespan." Grease fittings are a Good Thing(tm)
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
> http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #795059 ] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 04:58 |
|
In article <fpg5190med [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>Do you do any maintenance on things around the house? Flush the
>sediment out of your water heaters, check the anodes every year?
Ha, I tried that once. That anode ain't coming loose short of air
tools; the longest cheater I could get in there wouldn't even budge
it. When it goes, it's new heater time. Fortunately it's right next
to the sump and not that great a model anyway (came with the house,
which I didn't buy new).
>Maybe poke your head in the furnace to make sure nothing's amiss?
Village Idiot has never done that. If he had, he'd have turned on the
gas and looked around with a match, and the village would be needing a
new idiot.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #795078 ] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 16:26 |
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> Village Idiot has never done that. If he had, he'd have turned on the
> gas and looked around with a match, and the village would be needing a
> new idiot.
You should apply for the Job Russotto. Not only are you perfectly
qualified, but my your existing Village Idiot > the one you morons elected
twice - is about to leave the White House.
You know.. The Chimp and Chief.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 12:10:18 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.13758 Sekunden |
