View Full Version : Restaurant damaged by car.
Doug[_3_]
May 18th 10, 06:02 AM
I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
Maybe motorists are looking to go into the demolition business
judging by how many buildings they are trying to demolish these days.
The latest example is here...
"Denby Pottery restaurant crash driver released
No-one was in the restaurant at the time
An 18-year-old, who was arrested after the car he was driving crashed
into the restaurant at Denby Pottery, has been released on bail..."
More with pic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/8687737.stm
--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
Tony Dragon
May 18th 10, 06:50 AM
Doug wrote:
> I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
>
> Maybe motorists are looking to go into the demolition business
> judging by how many buildings they are trying to demolish these days.
> The latest example is here...
>
> "Denby Pottery restaurant crash driver released
>
> No-one was in the restaurant at the time
>
> An 18-year-old, who was arrested after the car he was driving crashed
> into the restaurant at Denby Pottery, has been released on bail..."
>
> More with pic:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/8687737.stm
>
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
Probably the throttle jammed, it happens all the time.
--
Tony Dragon
David Hansen
May 18th 10, 06:57 AM
On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:02:03 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
> wrote this:-
>I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
>that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
Indeed.
Some years ago I pointed out that a bike could not cause the amount
of damage is shown in the photograph. Since then I have been mildly
amused by the howls of protest from the unacceptable face of
motoring.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54
Doug[_3_]
May 18th 10, 07:03 AM
On 18 May, 06:50, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> > that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
>
> > *Maybe motorists are looking to go into the demolition business
> > judging by how many buildings they are trying to demolish these days.
> > The latest example is here...
>
> > "Denby Pottery restaurant crash driver released
>
> > No-one was in the restaurant at the time
>
> > An 18-year-old, who was arrested after the car he was driving crashed
> > into the restaurant at Denby Pottery, has been released on bail..."
>
> > More with pic:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/8687737.stm
>
>
> Probably the throttle jammed, it happens all the time.
>
So does loosing control and driving dangerously.
>
> > --
> > World Carfree Network
> >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
PeterG
May 18th 10, 07:35 AM
On May 18, 6:57*am, David Hansen >
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:02:03 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
> > wrote this:-
>
> >I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> >that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Some years ago I pointed out that a bike could not cause the amount
> of damage is shown in the photograph. Since then I have been mildly
> amused by the howls of protest from the unacceptable face of
> motoring.
>
> --
> * David Hansen, Edinburgh
> *I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> *http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54
Ah, the spokesman for the unacceptable face of cycling has replied.
PeterG
Dr Zoidberg[_7_]
May 18th 10, 07:38 AM
"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
You senile old tit. Nobody has ever said that a bike would cause more damage
than a car.
They have said that bikes can cause serious injury when they hit a person.
> Maybe motorists are looking to go into the demolition business
> judging by how many buildings they are trying to demolish these days.
We should make it illegal to do this.
> The latest example is here...
>
> "Denby Pottery restaurant crash driver released
>
> No-one was in the restaurant at the time
>
> An 18-year-old, who was arrested after the car he was driving crashed
> into the restaurant at Denby Pottery, has been released on bail..."
>
Oh look , it *is* illegal
--
Alex
Stephen Bagwell
May 18th 10, 08:35 AM
On 18 May, 07:38, "Dr Zoidberg" >
wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> > that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
>
> You senile old tit. Nobody has ever said that a bike would cause more damage
> than a car.
> They have said that bikes can cause serious injury when they hit a person.
>
> > Maybe motorists are looking to go into the demolition business
> > judging by how many buildings they are trying to demolish these days.
>
> We should make it illegal to do this.
>
> > The latest example is here...
>
> > "Denby Pottery restaurant crash driver released
>
> > No-one was in the restaurant at the time
>
> > An 18-year-old, who was arrested after the car he was driving crashed
> > into the restaurant at Denby Pottery, has been released on bail..."
>
> Oh look , it *is* illegal
>
> --
> Alex
How many less tonnes of carbon dioxide have been produced because of
Americans driving hybrid Toyota and Lexus cars?
Adrian
May 18th 10, 09:00 AM
Stephen Bagwell > gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:
> How many less tonnes of carbon dioxide have been produced because of
> Americans driving hybrid Toyota and Lexus cars?
Compared to what?
(Total non-sequitur ignored for the moment)
Paul - xxx[_2_]
May 18th 10, 09:38 AM
Doug wrote:
> I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
I wonder if you can post a link substantiating your claim that someone,
anyone, has actually said that cars are not much more destructive and
dangerous than bicycles?
--
Paul - xxx
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp
"Stephen Bagwell" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 May, 07:38, "Dr Zoidberg" >
> wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>
> How many less tonnes of carbon dioxide have been produced because of
> Americans driving hybrid Toyota and Lexus cars?
None.
Where do people think the electricity comes from???
Also - where do they think the car comes from???
The answer to both of these is 'a factory that puts out lots of nasty black
smoke'.
Mrcheerful[_2_]
May 18th 10, 03:16 PM
GT wrote:
> "Stephen Bagwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 18 May, 07:38, "Dr Zoidberg" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> How many less tonnes of carbon dioxide have been produced because of
>> Americans driving hybrid Toyota and Lexus cars?
>
> None.
>
> Where do people think the electricity comes from???
> Also - where do they think the car comes from???
> The answer to both of these is 'a factory that puts out lots of nasty
> black smoke'.
same as the factories that build bicycles, only most of those are in China
where the laws on pollution are less strict, so the emissions are much
worse.
"Doug" > wrote in message
...
>I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
Did *you* really think that a bicycle would do more damage to a brick wall
than a car?
If everyone used bicycles, then very few people would make it to work.
Industry and commerce would completely fail and the economy would collapse
horribly. If you are able to go about your day on a bicycle, then good for
you, but it doesn't suit everyone: How do you propose that I get my 2
children to school and then myself to work 40 miles away, on a bicycle, in
40 minutes?
On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:12:50 +0100
"GT" > wrote:
>"Stephen Bagwell" > wrote in message
...
>> On 18 May, 07:38, "Dr Zoidberg" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> How many less tonnes of carbon dioxide have been produced because of
>> Americans driving hybrid Toyota and Lexus cars?
>
>None.
>
>Where do people think the electricity comes from???
Some of it comes from regenerative braking , the energy which otherwise would
have just been lost as heat in the brakes. Also they save fuel by switching
the engine off when it would otherwise be idling. Though if they had diesel
engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot more efficient than they are at the
moment.
B2003
Adrian
May 18th 10, 03:21 PM
"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
>> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
> Did *you* really think that a bicycle would do more damage to a brick
> wall than a car?
>
> If everyone used bicycles, then very few people would make it to work.
> Industry and commerce would completely fail and the economy would
> collapse horribly. If you are able to go about your day on a bicycle,
> then good for you, but it doesn't suit everyone: How do you propose that
> I get my 2 children to school and then myself to work 40 miles away, on
> a bicycle, in 40 minutes?
By bus? By train?
'course the same laws of physics that say a ~1.5t car does more damage
than a ~100kg bicycle might also have something to say about a ~10t bus.
And remind me what a train weighs?
Adrian
May 18th 10, 03:24 PM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:12:50 +0100
> "GT" > wrote:
>>"Stephen Bagwell" > wrote in message
>>news:64e924ac-567f-416b-8535-
...
>>> On 18 May, 07:38, "Dr Zoidberg" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How many less tonnes of carbon dioxide have been produced because of
>>> Americans driving hybrid Toyota and Lexus cars?
>>
>>None.
>>
>>Where do people think the electricity comes from???
>
> Some of it comes from regenerative braking , the energy which otherwise
> would have just been lost as heat in the brakes.
Depends how competent and alert the driver is, of course, as to how much
they actually use the brakes.
> Also they save fuel by switching the engine off when it would otherwise
> be idling.
As do many non-hybrids. Although, having said that, my car engine barely
ever idles during my commute. Perhaps sometimes a more appropriate mode
of transport could be chosen?
> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot
> more efficient than they are at the moment.
You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current
hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol
emissions.
> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:12:50 +0100
> "GT" > wrote:
>>"Stephen Bagwell" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 18 May, 07:38, "Dr Zoidberg" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many less tonnes of carbon dioxide have been produced because of
>>> Americans driving hybrid Toyota and Lexus cars?
>>
>>None.
>>
>>Where do people think the electricity comes from???
>
> Some of it comes from regenerative braking , the energy which otherwise
> would
> have just been lost as heat in the brakes. Also they save fuel by
> switching
> the engine off when it would otherwise be idling. Though if they had
> diesel
> engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot more efficient than they are at
> the
> moment.
To answer those points directly:
Regenerative braking simply 'reclaims' some of the electricity already used.
An idling petrol / diesel engine uses barely any fuel at all - drivers who
are concerned about the half thimble of fuel they might waste in 5 minutes
of idling can use the little key just next to the steering wheel - a simple
turn and the engine uses no fuel at all!
Another point always omitted from these discussions is that people don't
realise that electric car batteries have a finite lifetime (is it 2-3
years?) and can't just be thrown away like torch batteries. New batteries
are expensive and have to be made at smokey factories and distributed using
smelly lorries etc etc.
On 18 May 2010 14:24:44 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
>> Also they save fuel by switching the engine off when it would otherwise
>> be idling.
>
>As do many non-hybrids. Although, having said that, my car engine barely
>ever idles during my commute. Perhaps sometimes a more appropriate mode
>of transport could be chosen?
Well we all get stuck in traffic jams occasionally and an idling engine is
doing zero mpg. BUt yes , non hybrids can do start-stop too but they can't
trickle along on electric power that may have come via the regen braking.
>> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot
>> more efficient than they are at the moment.
>
>You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current
>hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol
>emissions.
Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going purely
by CO2 emmissions and mpg diesel beats petrol every time.
B2003
"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
>>> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
>
>> Did *you* really think that a bicycle would do more damage to a brick
>> wall than a car?
>>
>> If everyone used bicycles, then very few people would make it to work.
>> Industry and commerce would completely fail and the economy would
>> collapse horribly. If you are able to go about your day on a bicycle,
>> then good for you, but it doesn't suit everyone: How do you propose that
>> I get my 2 children to school and then myself to work 40 miles away, on
>> a bicycle, in 40 minutes?
>
> By bus? By train?
Unfortunately, not an option - they pollute the environment, take bloody
ages and smell!
Bus would take hours and about 3 changes (maybe 4) - my work isn't on a bus
route and is in the next region.
I looked into the train - I have to leave before 5am to get there for
9:30am. Plus I have to add a 20 minute walk at 1 end and a 30 minute walk at
the other end.
> 'course the same laws of physics that say a ~1.5t car does more damage
> than a ~100kg bicycle might also have something to say about a ~10t bus.
> And remind me what a train weighs?
Adrian
May 18th 10, 03:37 PM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot
>>> more efficient than they are at the moment.
>>You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current
>>hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol
>>emissions.
> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going
> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg
is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations.
"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot
>>>> more efficient than they are at the moment.
>
>>>You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current
>>>hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol
>>>emissions.
>
>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going
>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg diesel beats petrol every time
>
> is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations.
Well if his statement is wrong, then perhaps you could explain exactly how
petrol is more efficient than diesel?
Adrian
May 18th 10, 03:42 PM
"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> Another point always omitted from these discussions is that people don't
> realise that electric car batteries have a finite lifetime (is it 2-3
> years?) and can't just be thrown away like torch batteries.
*ding*
About a decade ago, you could walk into your local friendly dealer and
buy a plug-in electric version of the Citroen Berlingo van - originally
designed explicitly for electric and internal combustion power.
Not only was it massively more expensive than the diesel version, with a
vastly shorter range, it was very slow and had a much reduced payload.
A few years ago, I saw one on eBay, very very cheap indeed - a tiny
fraction of the value of an equivalent age diesel. Only needed new
batteries. A replacement battery set was still listed as being available.
For a price higher than that of a new diesel van. I am under no doubt
whatsoever that that electric van would have been scrapped, at less than
half the expected life of the diesel equivalent.
Now, would somebody please care to explain the environmental benefit in
that?
<waits>
Adrian
May 18th 10, 03:43 PM
"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>> If everyone used bicycles, then very few people would make it to work.
>>> Industry and commerce would completely fail and the economy would
>>> collapse horribly. If you are able to go about your day on a bicycle,
>>> then good for you, but it doesn't suit everyone: How do you propose
>>> that I get my 2 children to school and then myself to work 40 miles
>>> away, on a bicycle, in 40 minutes?
>> By bus? By train?
> Unfortunately, not an option - they pollute the environment, take bloody
> ages and smell!
> Bus would take hours and about 3 changes (maybe 4) - my work isn't on a
> bus route and is in the next region.
> I looked into the train - I have to leave before 5am to get there for
> 9:30am. Plus I have to add a 20 minute walk at 1 end and a 30 minute
> walk at the other end.
<shrug> It's not my fault you live and work in the wrong place. You
should move. It's for the greater good, y'know.
"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> If everyone used bicycles, then very few people would make it to work.
>>>> Industry and commerce would completely fail and the economy would
>>>> collapse horribly. If you are able to go about your day on a bicycle,
>>>> then good for you, but it doesn't suit everyone: How do you propose
>>>> that I get my 2 children to school and then myself to work 40 miles
>>>> away, on a bicycle, in 40 minutes?
>
>>> By bus? By train?
>
>> Unfortunately, not an option - they pollute the environment, take bloody
>> ages and smell!
>> Bus would take hours and about 3 changes (maybe 4) - my work isn't on a
>> bus route and is in the next region.
>> I looked into the train - I have to leave before 5am to get there for
>> 9:30am. Plus I have to add a 20 minute walk at 1 end and a 30 minute
>> walk at the other end.
>
> <shrug> It's not my fault you live and work in the wrong place. You
> should move. It's for the greater good, y'know.
Oh I know! If someone could just have a little word with the mortgage people
and convince then to give me another 100k and I'll do that next week! Oh,
but I can't afford any higher payments - that still OK? If only everything
in life was a simple as a volkswagen!
Tony Dragon
May 18th 10, 06:16 PM
Adrian wrote:
> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> If everyone used bicycles, then very few people would make it to work.
>>>> Industry and commerce would completely fail and the economy would
>>>> collapse horribly. If you are able to go about your day on a bicycle,
>>>> then good for you, but it doesn't suit everyone: How do you propose
>>>> that I get my 2 children to school and then myself to work 40 miles
>>>> away, on a bicycle, in 40 minutes?
>
>>> By bus? By train?
>
>> Unfortunately, not an option - they pollute the environment, take bloody
>> ages and smell!
>> Bus would take hours and about 3 changes (maybe 4) - my work isn't on a
>> bus route and is in the next region.
>> I looked into the train - I have to leave before 5am to get there for
>> 9:30am. Plus I have to add a 20 minute walk at 1 end and a 30 minute
>> walk at the other end.
>
> <shrug> It's not my fault you live and work in the wrong place. You
> should move. It's for the greater good, y'know.
If you ask Doug, he will produce a report telling you how you can
achieve his goals.
--
Tony Dragon
Brimstone
May 18th 10, 06:35 PM
"GT" > wrote in message
...
> "Adrian" > wrote in message
> ...
>> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>>> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot
>>>>> more efficient than they are at the moment.
>>
>>>>You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current
>>>>hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol
>>>>emissions.
>>
>>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going
>>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg diesel beats petrol every time
>>
>> is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations.
>
> Well if his statement is wrong, then perhaps you could explain exactly how
> petrol is more efficient than diesel?
Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient".
Brimstone
May 18th 10, 06:37 PM
"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...
> Adrian wrote:
>> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>>>> If everyone used bicycles, then very few people would make it to work.
>>>>> Industry and commerce would completely fail and the economy would
>>>>> collapse horribly. If you are able to go about your day on a bicycle,
>>>>> then good for you, but it doesn't suit everyone: How do you propose
>>>>> that I get my 2 children to school and then myself to work 40 miles
>>>>> away, on a bicycle, in 40 minutes?
>>
>>>> By bus? By train?
>>
>>> Unfortunately, not an option - they pollute the environment, take bloody
>>> ages and smell!
>>> Bus would take hours and about 3 changes (maybe 4) - my work isn't on a
>>> bus route and is in the next region.
>>> I looked into the train - I have to leave before 5am to get there for
>>> 9:30am. Plus I have to add a 20 minute walk at 1 end and a 30 minute
>>> walk at the other end.
>>
>> <shrug> It's not my fault you live and work in the wrong place. You
>> should move. It's for the greater good, y'know.
>
> If you ask Doug, he will produce a report telling you how you can achieve
> his goals.
>
Does anyone know if Vince managed to make the suggestions in Doug's report
work?
Oooops, sorry, I forgot.
Adrian
May 18th 10, 07:09 PM
"Brimstone" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:
>>>>>> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot
>>>>>> more efficient than they are at the moment.
>>>>>You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current
>>>>>hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs
>>>>>petrol emissions.
>>>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going
>>>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg diesel beats petrol every time
>>> is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague
>>> generalisations.
>> Well if his statement is wrong, then perhaps you could explain exactly
>> how petrol is more efficient than diesel?
> Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient".
*ding*
Hence why I didn't say petrol _was_ "more efficient" than diesel, merely
pointed out that definining efficient as "CO2 and mpg only" was short-
sighted.
It ignores noise, NOx, particulate and other emissions, the increased
environmental impact of manufacture and lifetime maintenance of the more
complex injection and emissions equipment plus other components and a
variety of other factors.
B'sides, a barrel of crude oil isn't something that can be converted into
one product or the other. It distills into a mix of products. If petrol
stopped being used, there'd be significant wastage. Same if diesel
stopped being used. LPG used to be burnt as a waste by-product, but is
now used to power vehicles. If pump-cost-per-mile of fuel is used as a
metric, then LPG is currently quite probably by far and away the most
"efficient" fuel.
Adrian
May 18th 10, 07:10 PM
Tony Dragon > gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:
>> <shrug> It's not my fault you live and work in the wrong place. You
>> should move. It's for the greater good, y'know.
> If you ask Doug, he will produce a report telling you how you can
> achieve his goals.
Oooh! Will he? How quickly?
JNugent[_5_]
May 18th 10, 07:11 PM
Doug wrote:
> I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
>
> Maybe motorists are looking to go into the demolition business
> judging by how many buildings they are trying to demolish these days.
> The latest example is here...
>
> "Denby Pottery restaurant crash driver released
>
> No-one was in the restaurant at the time
>
> An 18-year-old, who was arrested after the car he was driving crashed
> into the restaurant at Denby Pottery, has been released on bail..."
>
> More with pic:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/8687737.stm
Are you sure it wasn't an example of performance art, on a level with
Banksy-styled criminal dam... er... I mean graffiti?
BrianW[_2_]
May 18th 10, 08:54 PM
On May 18, 6:02�am, Doug > wrote:
> I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
I don't, Doug. I haven't seen enough evidence to support such an
assertion. Any chance you could post some examples, so I can consider
it further?
Adrian
May 18th 10, 09:10 PM
BrianW > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:
>> I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
>> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
> I don't, Doug. I haven't seen enough evidence to support such an
> assertion. Any chance you could post some examples, so I can consider
> it further?
How about we do a real-life comparison test? Would that satisfy you?
I'll drive a car into a solid wall, whilst Duhg rides a bike into a
similar building.
'course, for a fair test, it'd have to be from the same speed - as high
as possible, ideally. Duhg - what speed can you manage on your bike? We
can find a really steep hill if it's a help.
Hell, I'll even source a car, if somebody promises to video the result
and put it on YouTube.
Doug[_3_]
May 19th 10, 06:30 AM
On 18 May, 09:38, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> > that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
>
> I wonder if you can post a link substantiating your claim that someone,
> anyone, has actually said that cars are not much more destructive and
> dangerous than bicycles?
>
It is just that they keep banging on here about how dangerous bicycles
are without even mentioning cars at all. See previous post...
"They have said that bikes can cause serious injury when they hit a
person", and cars can't? Cars can kill several people at once, such as
a group standing at a bus stop, impossible for a cyclist.
--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Tony Dragon
May 19th 10, 07:01 AM
Doug wrote:
> On 18 May, 09:38, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
>>> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
>> I wonder if you can post a link substantiating your claim that someone,
>> anyone, has actually said that cars are not much more destructive and
>> dangerous than bicycles?
>>
> It is just that they keep banging on here about how dangerous bicycles
> are without even mentioning cars at all. See previous post...
>
> "They have said that bikes can cause serious injury when they hit a
> person", and cars can't? Cars can kill several people at once, such as
> a group standing at a bus stop, impossible for a cyclist.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
So that would be a 'no I can't' then.
--
Tony Dragon
Paul - xxx[_2_]
May 19th 10, 07:32 AM
Doug wrote:
> On 18 May, 09:38, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally
> > > accepted that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than
> > > bicycles.
> >
> > I wonder if you can post a link substantiating your claim that
> > someone, anyone, has actually said that cars are not much more
> > destructive and dangerous than bicycles?
> >
> It is just that they keep banging on here about how dangerous bicycles
> are without even mentioning cars at all. See previous post...
So no link to anyone actually stating what you say they do.
> "They have said that bikes can cause serious injury when they hit a
> person", and cars can't? Cars can kill several people at once, such as
> a group standing at a bus stop, impossible for a cyclist.
Where, except in your mind, has anyone actually said bikes can cause
injury and cars don't?
--
Paul - xxx
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp
On 18 May 2010 14:37:46 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>>>> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot
>>>> more efficient than they are at the moment.
>
>>>You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current
>>>hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol
>>>emissions.
>
>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going
>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg
>
>is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations.
So which bit of the fact that diesels almost always have better mpg than
petrol engines for a given engine size and vehicle weight is confusing you?
B2003
On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:35:06 +0100
"Brimstone" > wrote:
>>> is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations.
>>
>> Well if his statement is wrong, then perhaps you could explain exactly how
>> petrol is more efficient than diesel?
>Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient".
The general meaning of "efficient" for internal combustion engines is the
amount of fuel it uses to do a given task. Unless you have a new one for us...
B2003
Adrian
May 19th 10, 10:38 AM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going
>>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg
>>is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations.
> So which bit of the fact that diesels almost always have better mpg than
> petrol engines for a given engine size and vehicle weight is confusing
> you?
<sigh> D'you mind awfully at least READING the subthread? Ta.
Brimstone
May 19th 10, 10:45 AM
> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:35:06 +0100
> "Brimstone" > wrote:
>>>> is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague
>>>> generalisations.
>>>
>>> Well if his statement is wrong, then perhaps you could explain exactly
>>> how
>>> petrol is more efficient than diesel?
>>Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient".
>
> The general meaning of "efficient" for internal combustion engines is the
> amount of fuel it uses to do a given task. Unless you have a new one for
> us...
>
One definition of "efficient" is that people read sub-threads before gobbing
off.
On 19 May 2010 09:38:16 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>>>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going
>>>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg
>
>>>is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations.
>
>> So which bit of the fact that diesels almost always have better mpg than
>> petrol engines for a given engine size and vehicle weight is confusing
>> you?
>
><sigh> D'you mind awfully at least READING the subthread? Ta.
Some of us have work to do and don't have time to read the reply you wrote
to someone elseÂ.
But I assume you're talking about this:
>Hence why I didn't say petrol _was_ "more efficient" than diesel, merely
>pointed out that definining efficient as "CO2 and mpg only" was short-
>sighted.
>
>It ignores noise, NOx, particulate and other emissions, the increased
>environmental impact of manufacture and lifetime maintenance of the more
>complex injection and emissions equipment plus other components and a
>variety of other factors.
in which case please explain to me which bit of the sentence I wrote:
"But going purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg..."
confused you.
Oh incidentaly:
>B'sides, a barrel of crude oil isn't something that can be converted into
>one product or the other. It distills into a mix of products. If petrol
>stopped being used, there'd be significant wastage. Same if diesel
>stopped being used.
is utter rubbish. Have you never heard of chemistry? Clue - only just over
50% of oil is used for fuel products.
Go and learn something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_(chemistry)
B2003
"Brimstone" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "GT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Adrian" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>> saying:
>>>
>>>>>> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot
>>>>>> more efficient than they are at the moment.
>>>
>>>>>You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current
>>>>>hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol
>>>>>emissions.
>>>
>>>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going
>>>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg diesel beats petrol every time
>>>
>>> is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations.
>>
>> Well if his statement is wrong, then perhaps you could explain exactly
>> how petrol is more efficient than diesel?
> Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient".
This was already defined - MPG, or miles per gallon. How far the vehicle can
be driven on 1 gallon of fuel.
Adrian
May 19th 10, 01:30 PM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>><sigh> D'you mind awfully at least READING the subthread? Ta.
> Some of us have work to do and don't have time to read the reply you
> wrote to someone elseÂ.
Another one who uses usenet as a write-only medium, eh? You're in good
company, what with the Duhgling.
> But I assume you're talking about this:
> in which case please explain to me which bit of the sentence I wrote:
>
> "But going purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg..."
>
> confused you.
It didn't. Clearly, my reply has terminally confused you, since you seem
to have totally the wrong end of the stick.
Like I said...
>>Hence why I didn't say petrol _was_ "more efficient" than diesel, merely
>>pointed out that definining efficient as "CO2 and mpg only" was short-
>>sighted.
> Oh incidentaly:
>>B'sides, a barrel of crude oil isn't something that can be converted
>>into one product or the other. It distills into a mix of products. If
>>petrol stopped being used, there'd be significant wastage. Same if
>>diesel stopped being used.
> is utter rubbish. Have you never heard of chemistry? Clue - only just
> over 50% of oil is used for fuel products.
Correct. The rest is used for lubrication, for... And why? Because the
different fractions aren't interchangable.
On 19 May 2010 12:30:11 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
>It didn't. Clearly, my reply has terminally confused you, since you seem
>to have totally the wrong end of the stick.
No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague" measure
of efficiency.
>> is utter rubbish. Have you never heard of chemistry? Clue - only just
>> over 50% of oil is used for fuel products.
>
>Correct. The rest is used for lubrication, for... And why? Because the
>different fractions aren't interchangable.
Er, no. Most of the rest is used in the chemicals industry and if you'd
bothered to read the link I supplied it would have explained to you how a lot
of the fractions are interchangable as fuels thanks to the cracking process.
I assume you did at least do a couple of years of chemistry at school since
this is pretty basic stuff?
B2003
Brimstone
May 19th 10, 01:54 PM
"GT" > wrote in message
...
> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "GT" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Adrian" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>>> saying:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot
>>>>>>> more efficient than they are at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>>>You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current
>>>>>>hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol
>>>>>>emissions.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going
>>>>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg diesel beats petrol every time
>>>>
>>>> is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague
>>>> generalisations.
>>>
>>> Well if his statement is wrong, then perhaps you could explain exactly
>>> how petrol is more efficient than diesel?
>> Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient".
>
> This was already defined - MPG, or miles per gallon. How far the vehicle
> can be driven on 1 gallon of fuel.
For some people that's far too narrow, hence my comment.
Adrian
May 19th 10, 02:00 PM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>It didn't. Clearly, my reply has terminally confused you, since you
>>seem to have totally the wrong end of the stick.
> No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague"
> measure of efficiency.
Lean-burn. Ricardo. Discuss.
>>> is utter rubbish. Have you never heard of chemistry? Clue - only just
>>> over 50% of oil is used for fuel products.
>>Correct. The rest is used for lubrication, for... And why? Because the
>>different fractions aren't interchangable.
> Er, no. Most of the rest is used in the chemicals industry and if you'd
> bothered to read the link I supplied it would have explained to you how
> a lot of the fractions are interchangable as fuels thanks to the
> cracking process.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Slowly, for your benefit...
- "for..." implies "and for a whole stack of other things, including
plastics and other production, and a ****load of stuff I can't be arsed
to list, for danger of sounding like Clement Freud on JaM."
- "a lot of" does not imply "all" - and you may wish to consider the
differences between petrol and diesel, and which products bear strong
similarities to either.
> I assume you did at least do a couple of years of chemistry at school
> since this is pretty basic stuff?
Well, my O-level was a while back, but...
On 19 May 2010 13:00:28 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
>> No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague"
>> measure of efficiency.
>
>Lean-burn. Ricardo. Discuss.
A dead technology for cars. Discuss.
B2003
Adrian
May 19th 10, 03:29 PM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>> No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague"
>>> measure of efficiency.
>>Lean-burn. Ricardo. Discuss.
> A dead technology for cars.
Why?
On 19 May 2010 14:29:47 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>>>> No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague"
>>>> measure of efficiency.
>
>>>Lean-burn. Ricardo. Discuss.
>
>> A dead technology for cars.
>
>Why?
Why ask me? Ask the car manufacturers.
B2003
Adrian
May 19th 10, 03:45 PM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>>>> No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague"
>>>>> measure of efficiency.
>>>>Lean-burn. Ricardo. Discuss.
>>> A dead technology for cars.
>>Why?
> Why ask me?
Because it's rather relevant to my point.
> Ask the car manufacturers.
No, I'm asking you, since you're the one who's claiming MPG and CO2 are
the only really important factors to "efficiency". Why did a technique
which was ready for production nearly 20 years ago, and would have
instantly resulted in damn near 50% fuel savings, suddenly disappear?
(Oh, and btw - it's not a "dead technology" - it's making a bit of a
comeback at the mo, but in a much reduced and significantly more complex
form. Why?)
On 19 May 2010 14:45:03 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
>>>> A dead technology for cars.
>
>>>Why?
>
>> Why ask me?
>
>Because it's rather relevant to my point.
Its still not efficient as a diesel engine.
>> Ask the car manufacturers.
>
>No, I'm asking you, since you're the one who's claiming MPG and CO2 are
Fine , it didn't play nicely with catalytic converters.
>the only really important factors to "efficiency". Why did a technique
So what other factors are there in efficiency? Do tell...
>which was ready for production nearly 20 years ago, and would have
>instantly resulted in damn near 50% fuel savings, suddenly disappear?
50%? Rubbish. Maybe if you left the engine idling all day it might use
50% less than a normal petrol engine would but in normal running it wouldn't
get close to that.
B2003
Adrian
May 19th 10, 03:53 PM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>> Ask the car manufacturers.
>>No, I'm asking you, since you're the one who's claiming MPG and CO2 are
> Fine , it didn't play nicely with catalytic converters.
Is the wrong answer.
>>the only really important factors to "efficiency". Why did a technique
> So what other factors are there in efficiency? Do tell...
Again?
>>which was ready for production nearly 20 years ago, and would have
>>instantly resulted in damn near 50% fuel savings, suddenly disappear?
> 50%? Rubbish. Maybe if you left the engine idling all day it might use
> 50% less than a normal petrol engine would but in normal running it
> wouldn't get close to that.
You don't even understand the basic concept behind lean burn, do you?
Adrian
May 19th 10, 03:54 PM
Adrian > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:
>>>which was ready for production nearly 20 years ago, and would have
>>>instantly resulted in damn near 50% fuel savings, suddenly disappear?
>> 50%? Rubbish. Maybe if you left the engine idling all day it might use
>> 50% less than a normal petrol engine would but in normal running it
>> wouldn't get close to that.
> You don't even understand the basic concept behind lean burn, do you?
(Yeh, yeh - my bad)
Clue: Stochiometry.
On 19 May 2010 14:53:43 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>>>> Ask the car manufacturers.
>
>>>No, I'm asking you, since you're the one who's claiming MPG and CO2 are
>
>> Fine , it didn't play nicely with catalytic converters.
>
>Is the wrong answer.
No it isn't.
>>>the only really important factors to "efficiency". Why did a technique
>
>> So what other factors are there in efficiency? Do tell...
>
>Again?
Yeah , again. Because so far I haven't noticed you mention anything else
that I'd say related to it.
>> 50%? Rubbish. Maybe if you left the engine idling all day it might use
>> 50% less than a normal petrol engine would but in normal running it
>> wouldn't get close to that.
>
>You don't even understand the basic concept behind lean burn, do you?
For a given power output they have to use the same amount of fuel as a
normal petrol engine. The laws of physics don't change inside their
combustion chambers.
B2003
Adrian
May 19th 10, 04:11 PM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>You don't even understand the basic concept behind lean burn, do you?
> For a given power output they have to use the same amount of fuel as a
> normal petrol engine. The laws of physics don't change inside their
> combustion chambers.
Like I said...
<sigh>
Stochiometry is normally 14.7:1.
For the Ricardo lean-burn, it was up around 21:1.
Pro: Superb fuel economy, no loss of drivability.
Con: NOx way, way higher.
On 19 May 2010 15:11:09 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
>Like I said...
>
><sigh>
>Stochiometry is normally 14.7:1.
>For the Ricardo lean-burn, it was up around 21:1.
>Pro: Superb fuel economy, no loss of drivability.
>Con: NOx way, way higher.
Its still not as efficient as a diesel of the same size because a diesel
is essentially a lean burn engine anyway in the sence that its throttled
by the amount of fuel injected , not by a throttle valve.
B2003
Bod[_2_]
May 19th 10, 04:40 PM
wrote:
> On 19 May 2010 15:11:09 GMT
> Adrian > wrote:
>> Like I said...
>>
>> <sigh>
>> Stochiometry is normally 14.7:1.
>> For the Ricardo lean-burn, it was up around 21:1.
>> Pro: Superb fuel economy, no loss of drivability.
>> Con: NOx way, way higher.
>
> Its still not as efficient as a diesel of the same size because a diesel
> is essentially a lean burn engine anyway in the sence that its throttled
> by the amount of fuel injected , not by a throttle valve.
>
> B2003
>
Aren't most petrol engines 'fuel injected'?
Bod
Adrian
May 19th 10, 04:51 PM
Bod > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>> Like I said...
>>>
>>> <sigh>
>>> Stochiometry is normally 14.7:1.
>>> For the Ricardo lean-burn, it was up around 21:1. Pro: Superb fuel
>>> economy, no loss of drivability. Con: NOx way, way higher.
>> Its still not as efficient as a diesel of the same size because a
>> diesel is essentially a lean burn engine anyway in the sence that its
>> throttled by the amount of fuel injected , not by a throttle valve.
> Aren't most petrol engines 'fuel injected'?
Yes.
However, on a petrol engine, both fuel and air are controlled. A diesel
is controlled only by varying the fuel - the air is unthrottled.
Bloater seems to think this is somehow relevant to lean burn petrols. God
knows why. He also seems to have redefined "efficient" again, since a
Ricardo lean burn would have been way ahead of both contemporary diesels
and modern common rails, if mpg is the only metric required.
Bod[_2_]
May 19th 10, 05:02 PM
Adrian wrote:
> Bod > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>> Like I said...
>>>>
>>>> <sigh>
>>>> Stochiometry is normally 14.7:1.
>>>> For the Ricardo lean-burn, it was up around 21:1. Pro: Superb fuel
>>>> economy, no loss of drivability. Con: NOx way, way higher.
>
>>> Its still not as efficient as a diesel of the same size because a
>>> diesel is essentially a lean burn engine anyway in the sence that its
>>> throttled by the amount of fuel injected , not by a throttle valve.
>
>> Aren't most petrol engines 'fuel injected'?
>
> Yes.
>
> However, on a petrol engine, both fuel and air are controlled. A diesel
> is controlled only by varying the fuel - the air is unthrottled.
>
> Bloater seems to think this is somehow relevant to lean burn petrols. God
> knows why. He also seems to have redefined "efficient" again, since a
> Ricardo lean burn would have been way ahead of both contemporary diesels
> and modern common rails, if mpg is the only metric required.
>
>
Oh, right.
Bod
On 19 May 2010 15:51:39 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
>Bloater seems to think this is somehow relevant to lean burn petrols. God
Because a lean burn engine basically gets rid of throttling losses so is
more efficient at lower rpm when the throttle would otherwise be partially
closed.
>knows why. He also seems to have redefined "efficient" again, since a
>Ricardo lean burn would have been way ahead of both contemporary diesels
>and modern common rails, if mpg is the only metric required.
For the same power output? Got any proof of that?
B2003
> wrote in message
...
> On 19 May 2010 13:00:28 GMT
> Adrian > wrote:
>>> No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague"
>>> measure of efficiency.
>>
>>Lean-burn. Ricardo. Discuss.
>
> A dead technology for cars. Discuss.
Not dead. Used on Alfas for the last few decades. My 156 runs in leanburn
below 1500 rpm. Ideal for city driving and occasional stationary moments!
Adrian
May 19th 10, 05:16 PM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>Bloater seems to think this is somehow relevant to lean burn petrols.
> Because a lean burn engine basically gets rid of throttling losses so
> is more efficient at lower rpm when the throttle would otherwise be
> partially closed.
ITYM "diesel". Lean-burn petrol is still throttled in the usual way -
although not all petrols are, look at BMW's ValveTronic.
Adrian
May 19th 10, 05:18 PM
"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> Not dead. Used on Alfas for the last few decades. My 156 runs in
> leanburn below 1500 rpm. Ideal for city driving and occasional
> stationary moments!
Is that intentional, though, or just another Spaghetti Marelli bit of
"character"?
(I had a 155TS and a 75 v6, and loved 'em both)
It's not the full-on Ricardo lean-burn, though, just "not quite as rich"
- and the requirement to keep lambda to damn near one is really only
because of three-way cats. Full power is developed richer, and leaning
off is eminently possible otherwise, for greater economy.
But - of course - Bloater will poo-poo what he doesn't understand. As
ever.
Doug[_3_]
May 19th 10, 05:27 PM
On 19 May, 07:01, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 18 May, 09:38, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> >>> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
> >> I wonder if you can post a link substantiating your claim that someone,
> >> anyone, has actually said that cars are not much more destructive and
> >> dangerous than bicycles?
>
> > It is just that they keep banging on here about how dangerous bicycles
> > are without even mentioning cars at all. See previous post...
>
> > "They have said that bikes can cause serious injury when they hit a
> > person", and cars can't? Cars can kill several people at once, such as
> > a group standing at a bus stop, impossible for a cyclist.
>
>
> So that would be a 'no I can't' then.
>
No it would be 'Tony doesn't know how to read properly'.
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> >http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Tony Dragon
May 19th 10, 07:12 PM
Doug wrote:
> On 19 May, 07:01, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 18 May, 09:38, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
>>>>> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
>>>> I wonder if you can post a link substantiating your claim that someone,
>>>> anyone, has actually said that cars are not much more destructive and
>>>> dangerous than bicycles?
>>> It is just that they keep banging on here about how dangerous bicycles
>>> are without even mentioning cars at all. See previous post...
>>> "They have said that bikes can cause serious injury when they hit a
>>> person", and cars can't? Cars can kill several people at once, such as
>>> a group standing at a bus stop, impossible for a cyclist.
>>
>> So that would be a 'no I can't' then.
>>
> No it would be 'Tony doesn't know how to read properly'.
>
>>> --
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>
So that would be a Doug 'wriggle, wriggle' I've been caught out.
--
Tony Dragon
Nick Finnigan
May 19th 10, 08:25 PM
GT wrote:
>> Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient".
>
> This was already defined - MPG, or miles per gallon. How far the vehicle can
> be driven on 1 gallon of fuel.
mpg is a poor measure of efficiency when comparing engines that run on
fuels of quite different densities (e.g. diesel v petrol v LPG v ethanol).
That is why TPTB introduced g/km of CO2 for tax bands.
For engines with the same aspiration and power, CO2 emissions using
different fuels are quite similar.
susan
May 20th 10, 04:11 AM
Buy high quality TAG Heuer Tiger Woods Golf Watches at low price, you can
not believe, but it is true.
There are two models on
http://www.luxuryowner.net/Replica-TAG-Heuer-Tiger-Woods-Golf-Watches.html
White: Tag Heuer Tiger Woods Golf White Mens Watch WAE1112.FT6008:
http://www.luxuryowner.net/Replica-Tag-Heuer-Tiger-Woods-Golf-White-Mens-Watch-WAE1112.FT6008.html
Black: Tag Heuer Tiger Woods Golf Black Mens Watch WAE1111.FT6004
http://www.luxuryowner.net/Replica-Tag-Heuer-Tiger-Woods-Golf-Black-Mens-Watch-WAE1111.FT6004.html
More replica watches you can refer: http://www.luxuryowner.net/
"Doug" >
...
>I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
>
> Maybe motorists are looking to go into the demolition business
> judging by how many buildings they are trying to demolish these days.
> The latest example is here...
>
> "Denby Pottery restaurant crash driver released
>
> No-one was in the restaurant at the time
>
> An 18-year-old, who was arrested after the car he was driving crashed
> into the restaurant at Denby Pottery, has been released on bail..."
>
> More with pic:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/8687737.stm
>
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
"Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
...
> GT wrote:
>>> Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient".
>>
>> This was already defined - MPG, or miles per gallon. How far the vehicle
>> can be driven on 1 gallon of fuel.
>
> mpg is a poor measure of efficiency when comparing engines that run on
> fuels of quite different densities (e.g. diesel v petrol v LPG v ethanol).
> That is why TPTB introduced g/km of CO2 for tax bands.
>
> For engines with the same aspiration and power, CO2 emissions using
> different fuels are quite similar.
Comparing CO2 output from 2 different hydrocarbons doesn't compare
efficiencies, it simply indicates how much carbon there was in the CH
compound. That is a measure of emmisions and a clever way of taxing the
motor vehicle. To compare efficiency between 2 hydrocarbon burning devices,
we have to examine how much hydrocarbon source is used to generate a fixed
amount of power. MPG is such a measurement. Some might argue that the
figures are skewed by different vehicle weights, but I would counter that
the entire vehicle is being assessed, not just the engine.
On 19 May 2010 16:16:29 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>>>Bloater seems to think this is somehow relevant to lean burn petrols.
>
>> Because a lean burn engine basically gets rid of throttling losses so
>> is more efficient at lower rpm when the throttle would otherwise be
>> partially closed.
>
>ITYM "diesel". Lean-burn petrol is still throttled in the usual way -
No they're not. Thats the whole point you numpty.
B2003
Adrian
May 20th 10, 05:33 PM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>>>Bloater seems to think this is somehow relevant to lean burn petrols.
>>> Because a lean burn engine basically gets rid of throttling losses so
>>> is more efficient at lower rpm when the throttle would otherwise be
>>> partially closed.
>>ITYM "diesel". Lean-burn petrol is still throttled in the usual way -
> No they're not. Thats the whole point you numpty.
So - do tell us - how DOES it work?
Nick Finnigan
May 20th 10, 06:20 PM
GT wrote:
>
> Comparing CO2 output from 2 different hydrocarbons doesn't compare
> efficiencies, it simply indicates how much carbon there was in the CH
> compound. That is a measure of emmisions and a clever way of taxing the
> motor vehicle. To compare efficiency between 2 hydrocarbon burning devices,
> we have to examine how much hydrocarbon source is used to generate a fixed
> amount of power.
'how much' is measured by mass, or energy.
MPG is such a measurement.
No, it isn't.
"Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
...
> GT wrote:
>>
>> Comparing CO2 output from 2 different hydrocarbons doesn't compare
>> efficiencies, it simply indicates how much carbon there was in the CH
>> compound. That is a measure of emmisions and a clever way of taxing the
>> motor vehicle. To compare efficiency between 2 hydrocarbon burning
>> devices, we have to examine how much hydrocarbon source is used to
>> generate a fixed amount of power.
>
> 'how much' is measured by mass, or energy.
>
> MPG is such a measurement.
>
> No, it isn't.
We were trying to measure efficiency, not count 'how much' emmissions are
produced. mpg is a measure of efficiency - it indicate how much fuel the
vehicle needs to move a certain distance. The vehicle that uses less fuel
for the same distance is more efficient.
Adrian
May 20th 10, 07:48 PM
"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> We were trying to measure efficiency, not count 'how much' emmissions
> are produced.
You don't think they're related at all?
> mpg is a measure of efficiency - it indicate how much fuel the vehicle
> needs to move a certain distance. The vehicle that uses less fuel for
> the same distance is more efficient.
If I had a lightweight motorbike which did 50mpg and a 3.5t van which did
40mpg laden, which would you say was more efficient?
If I came up with a technology that allowed me to dilute petrol 50%,
making 2 gallons of fuel from one of neat petrol - and applied it to a
car that normally did 40mpg on neat fuel, but now does 30mpg on dilute
fuel, which would you say was more efficient?
"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> We were trying to measure efficiency, not count 'how much' emmissions
>> are produced.
>
> You don't think they're related at all?
>
>> mpg is a measure of efficiency - it indicate how much fuel the vehicle
>> needs to move a certain distance. The vehicle that uses less fuel for
>> the same distance is more efficient.
>
> If I had a lightweight motorbike which did 50mpg and a 3.5t van which did
> 40mpg laden, which would you say was more efficient?
We were comparing petrol cars versus diesel cars. Comparing motorbikes with
vans is just as silly as it is irrelevant to the original *car* mpg
discussion.
> If I came up with a technology that allowed me to dilute petrol 50%,
> making 2 gallons of fuel from one of neat petrol - and applied it to a
> car that normally did 40mpg on neat fuel, but now does 30mpg on dilute
> fuel, which would you say was more efficient?
Neither - we were talking about the efficiency of 1 car versus another. If
you were to devise such a system, then it could (presumably) be applied to
all cars, therefore making the same *efficiency* saving across the board.
You haven't tho have you? Can I be your friend if you do?
BrianW[_2_]
May 20th 10, 08:46 PM
On May 18, 9:10�pm, Adrian > wrote:
> BrianW > gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> >> I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted
> >> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles.
> > I don't, Doug. �I haven't seen enough evidence to support such an
> > assertion. �Any chance you could post some examples, so I can consider
> > it further?
>
> How about we do a real-life comparison test? Would that satisfy you?
>
> I'll drive a car into a solid wall, whilst Duhg rides a bike into a
> similar building.
>
> 'course, for a fair test, it'd have to be from the same speed - as high
> as possible, ideally. Duhg - what speed can you manage on your bike? We
> can find a really steep hill if it's a help.
>
> Hell, I'll even source a car, if somebody promises to video the result
> and put it on YouTube.
That would be a completely pointless experiment, as the results are
entirely predictable. Gollum's thick skull would cause more damage to
the wall than any car could.
Nick Finnigan
May 20th 10, 09:15 PM
GT wrote:
> "Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> GT wrote:
>>> Comparing CO2 output from 2 different hydrocarbons doesn't compare
>>> efficiencies, it simply indicates how much carbon there was in the CH
>>> compound. That is a measure of emmisions and a clever way of taxing the
>>> motor vehicle. To compare efficiency between 2 hydrocarbon burning
>>> devices, we have to examine how much hydrocarbon source is used to
>>> generate a fixed amount of power.
>> 'how much' is measured by mass, or energy.
>>
>> MPG is such a measurement.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> We were trying to measure efficiency, not count 'how much' emmissions are
> produced. mpg is a measure of efficiency
No, it isn't.
- it indicate how much fuel the
> vehicle needs to move a certain distance. The vehicle that uses less fuel
> for the same distance is more efficient.
Not if you measure volumes of fuel, rather than energy content.
If I use petrol which is 8% denser and get 4% better mpg is my vehicle now
more efficient?
Stephen Bagwell
May 20th 10, 10:00 PM
On 18 May, 09:00, Adrian > wrote:
> Stephen Bagwell > gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
> > How many less tonnes of carbon dioxide have been produced because of
> > Americans driving hybrid Toyota and Lexus cars?
>
> Compared to what?
>
> (Total non-sequitur ignored for the moment)
Compared to a Cadillac Escalade
Adrian
May 21st 10, 07:58 AM
"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>> mpg is a measure of efficiency - it indicate how much fuel the vehicle
>>> needs to move a certain distance. The vehicle that uses less fuel for
>>> the same distance is more efficient.
>> If I had a lightweight motorbike which did 50mpg and a 3.5t van which
>> did 40mpg laden, which would you say was more efficient?
> We were comparing petrol cars versus diesel cars. Comparing motorbikes
> with vans is just as silly as it is irrelevant to the original *car* mpg
> discussion.
>> If I came up with a technology that allowed me to dilute petrol 50%,
>> making 2 gallons of fuel from one of neat petrol - and applied it to a
>> car that normally did 40mpg on neat fuel, but now does 30mpg on dilute
>> fuel, which would you say was more efficient?
> Neither - we were talking about the efficiency of 1 car versus another.
> If you were to devise such a system, then it could (presumably) be
> applied to all cars, therefore making the same *efficiency* saving
> across the board.
>
> You haven't tho have you? Can I be your friend if you do?
I think those goalposts just broke the land-speed record, so between us
we can rule the world...
Adrian
May 21st 10, 07:59 AM
BrianW > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:
>> How about we do a real-life comparison test? Would that satisfy you?
>>
>> I'll drive a car into a solid wall, whilst Duhg rides a bike into a
>> similar building.
>>
>> 'course, for a fair test, it'd have to be from the same speed - as high
>> as possible, ideally. Duhg - what speed can you manage on your bike? We
>> can find a really steep hill if it's a help.
>>
>> Hell, I'll even source a car, if somebody promises to video the result
>> and put it on YouTube.
> That would be a completely pointless experiment, as the results are
> entirely predictable.
I know. But it'd still be worth doing.
> Gollum's thick skull would cause more damage to the wall than any car
> could.
There's only one way to be sure.
On 20 May 2010 16:33:35 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>>>>>Bloater seems to think this is somehow relevant to lean burn petrols.
>
>>>> Because a lean burn engine basically gets rid of throttling losses so
>>>> is more efficient at lower rpm when the throttle would otherwise be
>>>> partially closed.
>
>>>ITYM "diesel". Lean-burn petrol is still throttled in the usual way -
>
>> No they're not. Thats the whole point you numpty.
>
>So - do tell us - how DOES it work?
It reduces throttling loses by regulating engine speed by regulating the
amount of fuel on a more or less constant throttle. Thats where the very high
air to fuel ratios from. Did you think the combustion in the chamber was
somehow magically different to a normal petrol engine that meant it could
generate the same power from less fuel? You get max power you when the fuel
is completely burnt and that already happens in a standard petrol engine
anyway.
B2003
"Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
...
> GT wrote:
>> "Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> GT wrote:
>>>> Comparing CO2 output from 2 different hydrocarbons doesn't compare
>>>> efficiencies, it simply indicates how much carbon there was in the CH
>>>> compound. That is a measure of emmisions and a clever way of taxing the
>>>> motor vehicle. To compare efficiency between 2 hydrocarbon burning
>>>> devices, we have to examine how much hydrocarbon source is used to
>>>> generate a fixed amount of power.
>>> 'how much' is measured by mass, or energy.
>>>
>>> MPG is such a measurement.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>
>> We were trying to measure efficiency, not count 'how much' emmissions are
>> produced. mpg is a measure of efficiency
>
> No, it isn't.
OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and maths.
Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50 miles is more
efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40 miles. Simple as that.
The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more efficiently. That clear?
Adrian
May 21st 10, 10:05 AM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>>>>>Bloater seems to think this is somehow relevant to lean burn
>>>>>>petrols.
>>>>> Because a lean burn engine basically gets rid of throttling losses
>>>>> so is more efficient at lower rpm when the throttle would otherwise
>>>>> be partially closed.
>>>>ITYM "diesel". Lean-burn petrol is still throttled in the usual way -
>>> No they're not. Thats the whole point you numpty.
>>So - do tell us - how DOES it work?
> It reduces throttling loses by regulating engine speed by regulating the
> amount of fuel on a more or less constant throttle. Thats where the very
> high air to fuel ratios from. Did you think the combustion in the
> chamber was somehow magically different to a normal petrol engine that
> meant it could generate the same power from less fuel?
That's exactly how it works, yes. Yes, it can also be throttled by
modifying the air volumes through adjusting valve opening and duration -
same as a normal petrol can. I've already mentioned BMW's ValveTronic.
> You get max power you when the fuel is completely burnt and that
> already happens in a standard petrol engine anyway.
Small problem - maximum power is developed considerably richer than
14.7:1. Lambda=1 is only required because of the flakiness of the three-
way cat.
Adrian
May 21st 10, 11:02 AM
"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and
> maths. Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50 miles
> is more efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40 miles.
> Simple as that. The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more
> efficiently.
It's _a_ measure, yes. If everything else is equal.
If everything else ISN'T equal, then it's not directly comparable in and
of itself. So - taken in isolation - it is not the whole story. More
information is required.
As you said...
> That clear?
"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and
>> maths. Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50 miles
>> is more efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40 miles.
>> Simple as that. The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more
>> efficiently.
>
> It's _a_ measure, yes.
Ahh, finally we agree that MPG is a measure of efficiency. Thank you.
> If everything else is equal.
Which it is - the two cars start from the same point on the same test track
and drive until their gallon of fuel is used up.
> As you said...
>> That clear?
Crystal!
Adrian
May 21st 10, 11:17 AM
"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>> OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and
>>> maths. Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50
>>> miles is more efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40
>>> miles. Simple as that. The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more
>>> efficiently.
>> It's _a_ measure, yes.
> Ahh, finally we agree that MPG is a measure of efficiency. Thank you.
I've never said it wasn't. I've been quite clear that it is not the only
measure of efficiency.
>> If everything else is equal.
> Which it is - the two cars start from the same point on the same test
> track and drive until their gallon of fuel is used up.
Which - as I keep pointing out - ignores all the other factors - fuel
density, fuel refining and supply chain, emissions, etc etc. Assuming, of
course, you are comparing two ostensibly identical cars.
On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:16:09 +0100
"GT" > wrote:
>"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
>> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>> OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and
>>> maths. Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50 miles
>>> is more efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40 miles.
>>> Simple as that. The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more
>>> efficiently.
>>
>> It's _a_ measure, yes.
>
>Ahh, finally we agree that MPG is a measure of efficiency. Thank you.
I'd be interested to know what other types of efficiencies in cars Adrian
thinks are important. Its oil usage? The amount of screen wash it gets
through?
B2003
Adrian
May 21st 10, 11:31 AM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
> I'd be interested to know what other types of efficiencies in cars
> Adrian thinks are important.
Have you EVER bothered reading a thread you contribute to?
On 21 May 2010 10:31:13 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>> I'd be interested to know what other types of efficiencies in cars
>> Adrian thinks are important.
>
>Have you EVER bothered reading a thread you contribute to?
Yes. And I haven't seen you answer this question yet.
B2003
> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:16:09 +0100
> "GT" > wrote:
>>"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
>>> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>
>>>> OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and
>>>> maths. Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50
>>>> miles
>>>> is more efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40 miles.
>>>> Simple as that. The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more
>>>> efficiently.
>>>
>>> It's _a_ measure, yes.
>>
>>Ahh, finally we agree that MPG is a measure of efficiency. Thank you.
>
> I'd be interested to know what other types of efficiencies in cars Adrian
> thinks are important. Its oil usage? The amount of screen wash it gets
> through?
He wants us to measure how dense the fuel is and what supply chain it came
through. I don't understand how buying fuel from different places can
physically change an engine and alter its efficiency - perhaps he knows of a
garage that tunes your car while you fill up - I'm only guessing though as
he hasn't explained how that works yet! Personally I tend to go by the
industry standard measurement for vehicle efficiency - its MPG.
Adrian
May 21st 10, 11:42 AM
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>> I'd be interested to know what other types of efficiencies in cars
>>> Adrian thinks are important.
>>Have you EVER bothered reading a thread you contribute to?
> Yes. And I haven't seen you answer this question yet.
Perhaps you ought to try to read posts other than your own, then.
On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:38:30 +0100
"GT" > wrote:
>> I'd be interested to know what other types of efficiencies in cars Adrian
>> thinks are important. Its oil usage? The amount of screen wash it gets
>> through?
>
>He wants us to measure how dense the fuel is and what supply chain it came
>through. I don't understand how buying fuel from different places can
Well the density of diesel vs petrol is hardly a secret. And even if you
go by miles per unit weight rather than volume diesel cars would still be
more efficient than petrol ones.
It should be noted than I much prefer petrol engines to diesel but that doesn't
mean I'm blind to reality with regards to diesels efficiency.
B2003
Adrian
May 21st 10, 11:47 AM
"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> He wants us to measure how dense the fuel is and what supply chain it
> came through. I don't understand how buying fuel from different places
> can physically change an engine and alter its efficiency - perhaps he
> knows of a garage that tunes your car while you fill up
Perhaps you don't understand that diesel and petrol cars use different
types of fuel?
"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> He wants us to measure how dense the fuel is and what supply chain it
>> came through. I don't understand how buying fuel from different places
>> can physically change an engine and alter its efficiency - perhaps he
>> knows of a garage that tunes your car while you fill up
>
> Perhaps you don't understand that diesel and petrol cars use different
> types of fuel?
No, I think I got that one thanks!
On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:24:32 +0100
Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>energy content is proportion to mass, not volume (which, among other
>things, explains why commercial aircraft measure fuel in Kg or lbs,
I would imagine the main reason for that is because if the plane is too
heavy it won't take off or crashes shortly after takeoff. Not a problem
you get with road vehicles.
B2003
Nick Finnigan
May 21st 10, 05:41 PM
GT wrote:
>
> OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and maths.
> Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50 miles is more
> efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40 miles. Simple as that.
No.
> The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more efficiently. That clear?
Clear, but wrong.
Nick Finnigan
May 21st 10, 06:08 PM
wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:38:30 +0100
> "GT" > wrote:
>>> I'd be interested to know what other types of efficiencies in cars Adrian
>>> thinks are important. Its oil usage? The amount of screen wash it gets
>>> through?
>> He wants us to measure how dense the fuel is and what supply chain it came
>> through. I don't understand how buying fuel from different places can
>
> Well the density of diesel vs petrol is hardly a secret. And even if you
...and the mass of diesel or petrol producing a gram of CO2 is also known.
> go by miles per unit weight rather than volume diesel cars would still be
> more efficient than petrol ones.
"For engines with the same aspiration and power, CO2 emissions using
different fuels are quite similar." Prove me wrong.
BrianW[_2_]
May 21st 10, 09:05 PM
On May 21, 7:59�am, Adrian > wrote:
> BrianW > gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> >> How about we do a real-life comparison test? Would that satisfy you?
>
> >> I'll drive a car into a solid wall, whilst Duhg rides a bike into a
> >> similar building.
>
> >> 'course, for a fair test, it'd have to be from the same speed - as high
> >> as possible, ideally. Duhg - what speed can you manage on your bike? We
> >> can find a really steep hill if it's a help.
>
> >> Hell, I'll even source a car, if somebody promises to video the result
> >> and put it on YouTube.
> > That would be a completely pointless experiment, as the results are
> > entirely predictable.
>
> I know. But it'd still be worth doing.
>
> > Gollum's thick skull would cause more damage to the wall than any car
> > could.
>
> There's only one way to be sure.
I suppose it would give Gollum yet one more thing to whine about.
Nick Finnigan
May 21st 10, 09:32 PM
Phil W Lee wrote:
> The same fuel, that will fly the plane the same distance, will occupy
> more volume if you uplift it in Abu Dhabi instead of Anchorage.
> Of even greater interest to an airline, if you fill by volume in
> Anchorage (or anywhere else cold), you will have excess fuel at your
> destination, which means you will have wasted fuel by transporting
> fuel that you didn't need.
>
> You can use this to your advantage by avoiding buying fuel when the
> temperature is high.
Although Summer petrol is denser than Winter petrol.
"Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
...
> GT wrote:
>>
>> OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and
>> maths. Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50 miles
>> is more efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40 miles. Simple
>> as that.
>
> No.
>
>> The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more efficiently. That clear?
>
> Clear, but wrong.
I said that a higher MPG equates to better efficiency. So the car doing
50MPG is more efficient than the car doing 18MPG. You simply say that is
wrong, so you are saying that a car that can drive 18 miles on a gallon of
fuel is more efficient than the car that can drive 50 miles on the same
amount of fuel. This clearly demonstrates that you don't have any
mathematical understanding. You offer no explanation for your sweeping
statement and you have made yourself look silly!
Nick Finnigan
May 23rd 10, 11:05 AM
GT wrote:
> "Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> GT wrote:
>>> OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and
>>> maths. Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50 miles
>>> is more efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40 miles. Simple
>>> as that.
>> No.
>>
>>> The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more efficiently. That clear?
>> Clear, but wrong.
>
> I said that a higher MPG equates to better efficiency. So the car doing
> 50MPG is more efficient than the car doing 18MPG. You simply say that is
> wrong, so you are saying that a car that can drive 18 miles on a gallon of
> fuel is more efficient than the car that can drive 50 miles on the same
> amount of fuel.
No, I am saying there is not enough information to decide, because the
amount of fuel in one gallon varies.
This clearly demonstrates that you don't have any
mathematical understanding. You offer no explanation for your sweeping
statement and you have made yourself look silly!
On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:08:42 +0100
Nick Finnigan > wrote:
>> go by miles per unit weight rather than volume diesel cars would still be
>> more efficient than petrol ones.
>
> "For engines with the same aspiration and power, CO2 emissions using
>different fuels are quite similar." Prove me wrong.
Well they're not are they because CO2 is specifically measured as grams per
kilometer so fuel weight or volume doesn't even come into it. Its prestty damn
easy to find the respective figures for equivalent petrol and diesel vehicles
and to see that diesel wins hands down the vast majority of the time so I'm
not sure where that spurious quote came from but its quite clearly ********.
Prove you wrong? Go look at this site then:
http://www.carpages.co.uk/co2/
B2003
"Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
...
> GT wrote:
>> "Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> GT wrote:
>>>> OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and
>>>> maths. Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50
>>>> miles is more efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40
>>>> miles. Simple as that.
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more efficiently. That clear?
>>> Clear, but wrong.
>>
>> I said that a higher MPG equates to better efficiency. So the car doing
>> 50MPG is more efficient than the car doing 18MPG. You simply say that is
>> wrong, so you are saying that a car that can drive 18 miles on a gallon
>> of fuel is more efficient than the car that can drive 50 miles on the
>> same amount of fuel.
>
> No, I am saying there is not enough information to decide
How can we reason with a statement like "50MPG versus 18MPG = not enough
informatino to decide which is more efficient"!
Albert T Cone
May 26th 10, 02:40 PM
GT wrote:
> "Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> GT wrote:
>>> "Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> GT wrote:
>>>>> OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and
>>>>> maths. Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50
>>>>> miles is more efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40
>>>>> miles. Simple as that.
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>> The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more efficiently. That clear?
>>>> Clear, but wrong.
>>> I said that a higher MPG equates to better efficiency. So the car doing
>>> 50MPG is more efficient than the car doing 18MPG. You simply say that is
>>> wrong, so you are saying that a car that can drive 18 miles on a gallon
>>> of fuel is more efficient than the car that can drive 50 miles on the
>>> same amount of fuel.
>> No, I am saying there is not enough information to decide
>
> How can we reason with a statement like "50MPG versus 18MPG = not enough
> informatino to decide which is more efficient"!
Well anybody of a scientific bent would probably define efficiency as
the ratio of total useful energy output to total energy input. A
heavier or less aerodynamic car might well be more efficient, but less
/economical/.
Yes, it's pedantry, but then this is usenet.
Nick Finnigan
May 26th 10, 06:25 PM
GT wrote:
>> No, I am saying there is not enough information to decide
>
> How can we reason with a statement like "50MPG versus 18MPG = not enough
> informatino to decide which is more efficient"!
By specifying what fuel is being used in each case e.g. Octane, Hydrogen.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.