On 17/09/2023 20:05, NY wrote:
> you can guarantee that the great long gap in the next lane to your right
> into which you would pull to overtake, has suddenly become crammed with
> cars, so you end up having to slow down to wait for a gap. Or else you
> take the opportunity to pull into it early, and then spend ages while
> you gradually overtake the cars which are going maybe 5-10 mph slower
> than your chosen speed. My preferred driving style, assuming no traffic
> in the next lane on the right, is to get fairly close to the slower car
> ahead and then pull out, so I'm not hogging Lane 2 for *too* long.

Well as I said in a previous post, my aim is not to keep to the speed
limits, but keep my licence clean.

I will happily use 90mph overriding cruise control to get my car into a
safe space with nothing ahead or behind or to the right before returning
to legal speeds.

The myth that government limits are safe speeds, and that all you have
to do to be safe is respect them, is a load of unadulterated wombat
turds that I do not ascribe to.

My first priority is staying alive and staying away from other cars,
cyclists and other pedestrians, the edges of the road, and medium sized
furry animals is how you do that.

Speed has fuck all to do with anything unless it makes the above harder
to do.

The 20mph limit is predicated on the assumption that you will inevitably
hit someone, and this way you don't kill them.

It would be better to teach people how not to hit them in the first place.

So under these conditions I drive for safety of myself firstly, of
others secondly and my car thirdly. The government makes this far far
harder, so I use a satnav and cruise control to avoid spending my time
looking at a not very accurate speedo instead of the road and its edges

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 17/09/2023 20:31, nib wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 11:51:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> ...
>>> More than one model and brand does that. It doesn't steer for you,
>>> and it just avoids the nuisance of disengaging the cruise all the time,
>>> as the driver in front does the speed-yoyo.
>>>
>> I cant recall whether I have that or not.
>>
>> There is a button marked ASL..but that is simply a speed limiter.
>> Fucking dangerous as it cuts your options in half in an emergency
>>
>
> Just push your foot down hard. On mine, I assume on many others, that
> hits a switch that disables the limiter and off you zoom...
>
Possibly rather faster than you would have liked. I don't normally
*want* to unleash 285 bhp especially in a 30mph limit

> nib

--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

On 18/09/2023 01:13, me9 wrote:
> Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 17/09/2023 10:13, Theo wrote: mile from the aircon.
>>>
>>> A car a/c compressor consumes about 2 kW.
>>
>> Why does it consume so much? In a house, a 2kW air conditioner will easily
>> cool a room of 40 - 50m^3 without problem. A car's interior will be a
>> tenth of that, so is a car's a/c just inefficient?
>>
> I discovered recently on a couple of hot days that with the climate control
> on the petrol consumption increased greatly *unless* the system was set to
> recirculate. Otherwise you are cooling *all* the air from outside
> temperatures to the temperature you want inside. You don't do that in a
> house unless you leave the doors and windows wide open.
>

Well, 'greatly' is a moveable feast...and it all depends on how fast you
are going
Pissing around town at an average of 16mph or whatever, yes its going to
really make a difference.

I arrange my routes to use quiet country roads with little traffic, and
my local towns are small, so it harms me little.

--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

On 18/09/2023 09:39, alan_m wrote:
> On 18/09/2023 04:03, Paul wrote:
>
>> As an example, a product was announced within the past week, that
>> is "3 cylinder, 300 HP", which is not what you expect from a three
>> cylinder car. You expect 75HP and a tiny cabin. And to please the
>> kids who buy such stuff, it has a nice "tone" at idle. So it gurgles
>> or whatever. That's not enough horsepower for everyone, but the
>> car doesn't have a large curb weight either.
>
> Ford in UK/Europe have a 1 litre 3 cylinder engine with turbo rated at
> 155bhp - also de-rated to 125 and 90 bhp depending on car model/variant.
>
I watch the occasional 'I do cars' blown engine tear down on you tube. I
don't think he had greater contempt than for the Ford Ecoboost engine.

--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

On 17/09/2023 08:01, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 16/09/2023 23:57, SteveW wrote:
>> On 16/09/2023 22:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> It occurred to me today, having finally got the aircon fixed, that
>>> aircon introduces another dimensions into MPG calculations.
>>>
>>> It is generally reckoned that a car with windows closed has less drag
>>> than one with them open, but adding aircon adds a *constant* power
>>> drain, irrespective of car speed.
>>>
>>> Which means for best MPG you want to travel *faster* with aircon, than
>>> without it. In order to shorten journey times and hence energy loss per
>>> mile from the aircon.
>>
>> The general rule of thumb used to be - below 40mph, open windows are
>> more efficient than aircon and above 40mph it is the other way around.
>
> *More* efficient than what? Cooling the car's interior? If that's what
> you mean, surely it's the other way round. The faster the air flow, the
> cooler it will appear to be. You lose heat by evaporative cooling, so
> the faster air flow will remove sweat more quickly.

The title of the thread says that it is about fuel efficiency. Above
around 40mph, the extra fuel needed to overcome drag from open windows
becomes greater than the extra fuel needed to drive the air-conditioning.

> One question though - is it better to have the aircon recirculating the
> cooled internal air, or better to have fresh air being cooled all the
> time? I guess it depends on the outside temperature and how quickly the
> car's interior suffers from any "greenhouse" effect and perceived
> "stuffiness" with closed windows. I always have fresh air coming in
> (although in the past when stuck behind a smoking, stinking diesel I
> would close the outside vents).

Generally I find that recirc is good on very hot days, as the interior
temperature is lower than the outside temperature, so the air-con does
not need to do as much cooling.

It is also good for demisting on winter days, as the interior air has
already been dried, unlike the outside air.

On 17/09/2023 10:57, Bob Henson wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 17/09/2023 08:01, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> One question though - is it better to have the aircon recirculating the
>>> cooled internal air, or better to have fresh air being cooled all the
>>> time? I guess it depends on the outside temperature and how quickly the
>>> car's interior suffers from any "greenhouse" effect and perceived
>>> "stuffiness" with closed windows. I always have fresh air coming in
>>> (although in the past when stuck behind a smoking, stinking diesel I
>>> would close the outside vents).
>>
>> I think I would only recirculate when there was a need for massive
>> temperature change, quickly.
>>
>
> In a stationary car is the only safe way - you would get quickly anoxic and
> become a danger to yourself and everyone else if you kept it on recirculate
> whilst driving along for some time.

There is always some leakage in and there are hidden outlets (usually
behind the wrap around sections of the rear bumper, so it takes a long
time for the air to become "bad".

On 17/09/2023 09:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 16/09/2023 23:57, SteveW wrote:
>> On 16/09/2023 22:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> It occurred to me today, having finally got the aircon fixed, that
>>> aircon introduces another dimensions into MPG calculations.
>>>
>>> It is generally reckoned that a car with windows closed has less drag
>>> than one with them open, but adding aircon adds a *constant* power
>>> drain, irrespective of car speed.
>>>
>>> Which means for best MPG you want to travel *faster* with aircon,
>>> than without it. In order to shorten journey times and hence energy
>>> loss per mile from the aircon.
>>
>> The general rule of thumb used to be - below 40mph, open windows are
>> more efficient than aircon and above 40mph it is the other way around.
>>
> That sounds about right for a 20 year old car...
>
> I wonder if it holds today.

There may have been some increased efficiency in air-con and there have
definitely been improvments to body design for air-flow. It may be that
the 40mph figure is too high for modern cars.

> Anyone else remember air brakes aka 'quarter lights'

Yes - and trying to glue the quartlight latches back to the glass on
later cars.

On 17/09/2023 11:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 11:38, alan_m wrote:
>> On 17/09/2023 10:44, Bob Henson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I presume many have found a way around the limiters then? Many travel
>>> well
>>> in excess of that speed.
>>>
>>
>> Except when one is attempting to leave a motorway and left hand lane
>> is nose to tail with HGVs travelling at 30mph :)
>>
>
> Mm. That's when a little fore thought and planning comes into play. I
> generally start to plan a busy dual carriageway exist *at least* a mile
> ahead. Use of maxium rabbit on the welly foot is sometimes indicated to
> get to the head of the queue before the turnoff.

With the heavier traffic of today and the consequent difficulties of
getting from as far as the 4th lane during rush-hour, it is probably
time that they added a 2 mile sign for the junctions.

On 17/09/2023 10:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 10:14:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 17/09/2023 09:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 09:38:09 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <kmmnd0Fce40U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
>>>> <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes snip
>>>>>
>>>>> The best way of saving fuel is to travel for long distances at a
>>>>> constant speed without a lot of starting and stopping or accelerating
>>>>> or braking. My car achieves far better MPG at a steady 70mph on a
>>>>> motorway that it does around town at a far lower average speed. *But*
>>>>> just to emphasise the point made above, it does far better still at a
>>>>> constant 60pmh - all with the aircon on all the time.
>>>>
>>>> Momentary idle thought.. presumably lines of traffic travelling at
>>>> similar speeds will create local air flows not linked to wind
>>>> speed/direction.
>>>
>>> If you really want to save fuel, you'd slipstream an HGV ... needs
>>> balls of steel though.
>>
>> And brakes at least better than the HGVs...and lightning fast reflexes.
>> Basically you can drive a reaction time away from the HGV.
>>
>> Any loss of concentration could be a disaster though.
>>
>> I used to do it back in the day, but these days I leave the longest
>> possible gap to traffic ahead.
>
> That's one of the things a semi autonomous car could do ...

Except that it could still not brake fast enough if the HGV hit
something very heavy and solid and came to an almost immediate stop. The
car's electronics might have a very good reaction time, but physics
still dictates the required braking distance/time.

On 17/09/2023 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 11:29, Paul wrote:
>> On 9/17/2023 5:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 10:14:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/09/2023 09:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 09:38:09 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <kmmnd0Fce40U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
>>>>>> <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The best way of saving fuel is to travel for long distances at a
>>>>>>> constant speed without a lot of starting and stopping or
>>>>>>> accelerating
>>>>>>> or braking. My car achieves far better MPG at a steady 70mph on a
>>>>>>> motorway that it does around town at a far lower average speed.
>>>>>>> *But*
>>>>>>> just to emphasise the point made above, it does far better still
>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>> constant 60pmh - all with the aircon on all the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Momentary idle thought.. presumably lines of traffic travelling at
>>>>>> similar speeds will create local air flows not linked to wind
>>>>>> speed/direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you really want to save fuel, you'd slipstream an HGV ... needs
>>>>> balls of steel though.
>>>>
>>>> And brakes at least better than the HGVs...and lightning fast reflexes.
>>>> Basically you can drive a reaction time away from the HGV.
>>>>
>>>> Any loss of concentration could be a disaster though.
>>>>
>>>> I used to do it back in the day, but these days I leave the longest
>>>> possible gap to traffic ahead.
>>>
>>> That's one of the things a semi autonomous car could do ...
>>>
>>
>> They already do that. Adaptive Cruise Control.
>>
>>    https://mycardoeswhat.org/deeper-learning/adaptive-cruise-control/
>>
>> More than one model and brand does that. It doesn't steer for you,
>> and it just avoids the nuisance of disengaging the cruise all the
>> time, as the driver in front does the speed-yoyo.
>>
> I cant recall whether I have that or not.
>
> There is a button marked ASL..but that is simply a speed limiter.
> Fucking dangerous as it cuts your options in half in an emergency

The cars that I have driven, have their speed limiting overridden by
flooring the accelerator and then remain overriden, until you let the
speed drop back to the set limit.

On 17/09/2023 16:20, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 06:29:54 -0400, Paul wrote:
>
>> On 9/17/2023 5:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 10:14:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/09/2023 09:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 09:38:09 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <kmmnd0Fce40U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
>>>>>> <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The best way of saving fuel is to travel for long distances at a
>>>>>>> constant speed without a lot of starting and stopping or
>>>>>>> accelerating or braking. My car achieves far better MPG at a steady
>>>>>>> 70mph on a motorway that it does around town at a far lower average
>>>>>>> speed. *But*
>>>>>>> just to emphasise the point made above, it does far better still at
>>>>>>> a constant 60pmh - all with the aircon on all the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Momentary idle thought.. presumably lines of traffic travelling at
>>>>>> similar speeds will create local air flows not linked to wind
>>>>>> speed/direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you really want to save fuel, you'd slipstream an HGV ... needs
>>>>> balls of steel though.
>>>>
>>>> And brakes at least better than the HGVs...and lightning fast
>>>> reflexes.
>>>> Basically you can drive a reaction time away from the HGV.
>>>>
>>>> Any loss of concentration could be a disaster though.
>>>>
>>>> I used to do it back in the day, but these days I leave the longest
>>>> possible gap to traffic ahead.
>>>
>>> That's one of the things a semi autonomous car could do ...
>>>
>>>
>> They already do that. Adaptive Cruise Control.
>>
>> https://mycardoeswhat.org/deeper-learning/adaptive-cruise-control/
>>
>> More than one model and brand does that. It doesn't steer for you,
>> and it just avoids the nuisance of disengaging the cruise all the time,
>> as the driver in front does the speed-yoyo.
>
> Yeah, well.
>
> My Citroen had that. Only it would rely on reducing acceleration and gear
> braking (it was an auto). Worked "OK". Right up until the point where it
> would give up and leave the car to coast into whatever was slowing down
> in front.

That's were EVs work better - they can slow to a complete halt and then
set off again when the traffic moves.

On 18/09/2023 09:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 20:05, NY wrote:
>> you can guarantee that the great long gap in the next lane to your
>> right into which you would pull to overtake, has suddenly become
>> crammed with cars, so you end up having to slow down to wait for a
>> gap. Or else you take the opportunity to pull into it early, and then
>> spend ages while you gradually overtake the cars which are going maybe
>> 5-10 mph slower than your chosen speed. My preferred driving style,
>> assuming no traffic in the next lane on the right, is to get fairly
>> close to the slower car ahead and then pull out, so I'm not hogging
>> Lane 2 for *too* long.
>
> Well as I said in a previous post, my aim is not to keep to the speed
> limits, but keep my licence clean.
>
> I will happily use 90mph overriding cruise control to get my car into a
> safe space with nothing ahead or behind or to the right before returning
> to legal speeds.
>
> The myth  that government limits are safe speeds, and that all you have
> to do to be safe is respect them, is a load of unadulterated wombat
> turds that I do not ascribe to.
>
> My first priority is staying alive and staying away from other cars,
> cyclists and other pedestrians, the edges of the road,  and medium sized
> furry animals is how you do that.
>
> Speed has fuck all to do with anything unless it makes the above harder
> to do.
>
> The 20mph limit is predicated on the assumption that you will inevitably
> hit someone, and this way you don't kill them.
>
> It would be better to teach people how not to hit them in the first place.

Better still to teach the other people not to put themselves in a
position to be hit. Figures from some years ago showed that for
pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries, the PRIMARY cause of the
incident, in 82% of cases, was "Pedestrian failed to look."

What has happened to road safety lessons in schools, public information
adverts, etc.?

On 18/09/2023 13:37, SteveW wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 08:01, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 16/09/2023 23:57, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 16/09/2023 22:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> It occurred to me today, having finally got the aircon fixed, that
>>>> aircon introduces another dimensions into MPG calculations.
>>>>
>>>> It is generally reckoned that a car with windows closed has less drag
>>>> than one with them open, but adding aircon adds a *constant* power
>>>> drain, irrespective of car speed.
>>>>
>>>> Which means for best MPG you want to travel *faster* with aircon, than
>>>> without it. In order to shorten journey times and hence energy loss per
>>>> mile from the aircon.
>>>
>>> The general rule of thumb used to be - below 40mph, open windows are
>>> more efficient than aircon and above 40mph it is the other way around.
>>
>> *More* efficient than what? Cooling the car's interior? If that's what
>> you mean, surely it's the other way round. The faster the air flow,
>> the cooler it will appear to be. You lose heat by evaporative cooling,
>> so the faster air flow will remove sweat more quickly.
>
> The title of the thread says that it is about fuel efficiency. Above
> around 40mph, the extra fuel needed to overcome drag from open windows
> becomes greater than the extra fuel needed to drive the air-conditioning.
>
>> One question though - is it better to have the aircon recirculating
>> the cooled internal air, or better to have fresh air being cooled all
>> the time? I guess it depends on the outside temperature and how
>> quickly the car's interior suffers from any "greenhouse" effect and
>> perceived "stuffiness" with closed windows. I always have fresh air
>> coming in (although in the past when stuck behind a smoking, stinking
>> diesel I would close the outside vents).
>
> Generally I find that recirc is good on very hot days, as the interior
> temperature is lower than the outside temperature, so the air-con does
> not need to do as much cooling.

In general on a hot day the interior of a car will *without aircon* be
up to 60-70°C.

If you want to recycle your stale farts, that's OK with me, but I prefer
fresh air.

>
> It is also good for demisting on winter days, as the interior air has
> already been dried, unlike the outside air.
>
Er no. the interior air is full of your sweaty armpits stale breath and
noxious farts. NEVER use recirculate to demist...heat plus fresh
dehumified air is what you want.

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On 18/09/2023 13:49, SteveW wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 11:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 17/09/2023 11:38, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 17/09/2023 10:44, Bob Henson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I presume many have found a way around the limiters then? Many
>>>> travel well
>>>> in excess of that speed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except when one is attempting to leave a motorway and left hand lane
>>> is nose to tail with HGVs travelling at 30mph :)
>>>
>>
>> Mm. That's when a little fore thought and planning comes into play. I
>> generally start to plan a busy dual carriageway exist *at least* a
>> mile ahead. Use of maxium rabbit on the welly foot is sometimes
>> indicated to get to the head of the queue before the turnoff.
>
> With the heavier traffic of today and the consequent difficulties of
> getting from as far as the 4th lane during rush-hour, it is probably
> time that they added a 2 mile sign for the junctions.
>
My satnav adds up to 20 miles....another reason why I depend on it on
roads I dont know well.

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On 18/09/2023 13:52, SteveW wrote:
> Except that it could still not brake fast enough if the HGV hit
> something very heavy and solid and came to an almost immediate stop.

You obviously have never seen a car crash, What doesn't happen is that
things come to an abrupt stop.

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On 18/09/2023 13:55, SteveW wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 17/09/2023 11:29, Paul wrote:
>>> On 9/17/2023 5:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 10:14:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/09/2023 09:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 09:38:09 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <kmmnd0Fce40U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
>>>>>>> <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes snip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The best way of saving fuel is to travel for long distances at a
>>>>>>>> constant speed without a lot of starting and stopping or
>>>>>>>> accelerating
>>>>>>>> or braking. My car achieves far better MPG at a steady 70mph on a
>>>>>>>> motorway that it does around town at a far lower average speed.
>>>>>>>> *But*
>>>>>>>> just to emphasise the point made above, it does far better still
>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>> constant 60pmh - all with the aircon on all the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Momentary idle thought.. presumably lines of traffic travelling at
>>>>>>> similar speeds will create local air flows not linked to wind
>>>>>>> speed/direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you really want to save fuel, you'd slipstream an HGV ... needs
>>>>>> balls of steel though.
>>>>>
>>>>> And brakes at least better than the HGVs...and lightning fast
>>>>> reflexes.
>>>>> Basically you can drive a reaction time away from the HGV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any loss of concentration could be a disaster though.
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to do it back in the day, but these days I leave the longest
>>>>> possible gap to traffic ahead.
>>>>
>>>> That's one of the things a semi autonomous car could do ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> They already do that. Adaptive Cruise Control.
>>>
>>>    https://mycardoeswhat.org/deeper-learning/adaptive-cruise-control/
>>>
>>> More than one model and brand does that. It doesn't steer for you,
>>> and it just avoids the nuisance of disengaging the cruise all the
>>> time, as the driver in front does the speed-yoyo.
>>>
>> I cant recall whether I have that or not.
>>
>> There is a button marked ASL..but that is simply a speed limiter.
>> Fucking dangerous as it cuts your options in half in an emergency
>
> The cars that I have driven, have their speed limiting overridden by
> flooring the accelerator and then remain overriden, until you let the
> speed drop back to the set limit.
>
The car that I have flooring the accelerator is rather a dangerous thing
to do

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 18/09/2023 14:01, SteveW wrote:
> On 18/09/2023 09:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>>
>> Speed has fuck all to do with anything unless it makes the above
>> harder to do.
>>
>> The 20mph limit is predicated on the assumption that you will
>> inevitably hit someone, and this way you don't kill them.
>>
>> It would be better to teach people how not to hit them in the first
>> place.
>
> Better still to teach the other people not to put themselves in a
> position to be hit. Figures from some years ago showed that for
> pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries, the PRIMARY cause of the
> incident, in 82% of cases, was "Pedestrian failed to look."
>
Yes. My first time in court was as a 13 year old witness to the death of
an old lady hit by a rover in a 30mph zone...she simply stepped off the
pavement right in front of it.

> What has happened to road safety lessons in schools, public information
> adverts, etc.?
>
You can't fine and tax people for behaving intelligently on the roads.
Post Blair the name of the game is to invent work for the state sector
to create jobs. Te state sector is now 46% of GDP, That essentially
means than 1 in 2 people work for the gummint, one way or another.

>

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> USA has huge distances, and cheap fuel.

I hear plenty of grumbling over prices there, not like it used to be,
West coast prices (e.g $6 per US gallon, not sure if that includes state
and federal taxes) workout to £1.28 per litre ... not a million miles
from ours.

On 9/18/2023 12:19 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> USA has huge distances, and cheap fuel.
>
> I hear plenty of grumbling over prices there, not like it used to be,
> West coast prices (e.g $6 per US gallon, not sure if that includes state
> and federal taxes) workout to £1.28 per litre ... not a million miles from ours.

Jollies aren't as cheap as they used to be.

If you take friends for water skiing at the lake with your
speedboat, you can burn through a thousand worth of petrol
over the weekend.

I expect habits have changed a bit.

Maybe when you get to the cottage, you'll
be playing horseshoes instead. (We used to have
horseshoe pits on an open field across from the
house.) And there is always wind surfing, where
the fuel cost is low.

Even back when fuel was cheap, some people had
to give up their hobbies. One guy at work owned
a DC3. But he couldn't really afford to fly it.
I bet even "parking" was expensive.

Paul

On 17/09/2023 09:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On a UK motorway  HGVs are mechanically limited to *56mph* (90km/h).
>
> The fact that it looks like 60mph to you is because 99.999% o9f all
> speedometers read about 7% too high.

In most cases, that is correct and they cruise at a very accurate 56mph.

On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 04:03:08 UTC+1, Paul wrote:
> On 9/17/2023 7:45 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > On 17/09/2023 12:06, alan_m wrote:
> >> On 17/09/2023 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >>
> >>> Watching you tube videos of a Florida mechanic suggests that in Florida in summer its 100% to try and keep the cabin relatively cool when its up at 40°C outside . Aircon servicing is a major part of what he does.
> >>
> >> But most of the American cars he services seem to have 5+ litre engines :)
> >
> > Indeed, but look at the mileage.
> > USA has huge distances, and cheap fuel. A BIG torquey slow revving engine LASTS.
> >
> > Even if it only gets 18mpg.
> >
> The 5 liter, are red meat for certain purposes. These people
> buy their jugs of milk at the corner store, in 5 liter pails as well.
>
> https://www.motortrend.com/features/the-10-cheapest-new-cars-with-v-8-engines/
>
> For the following article, click the picture in the middle of the page,
> then use the left-right cursor keys, to move the frame left or right.
>
> These too are red meat articles, the Cadillac products being closer to mainstream.
> But these aren't all from the same market segment. Some are too expensive to be sold
> in any quantity. These are in six liter country.
>
> https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g21784022/supersize-me-the-16-largest-displacement-engines-you-can-buy-today/
>
> The engines are gradually getting smaller, because they have turbo on them.
>
> As an example, a product was announced within the past week, that
> is "3 cylinder, 300 HP", which is not what you expect from a three
> cylinder car. You expect 75HP and a tiny cabin. And to please the
> kids who buy such stuff, it has a nice "tone" at idle. So it gurgles
> or whatever. That's not enough horsepower for everyone, but the
> car doesn't have a large curb weight either.
>
> *******
>
> This is what the poor people buy. The power trains on the two
> offerings are entirely different. The cheap one, you're relying
> on the power train warranty. The Ecoboost, you're buying the
> vehicle to keep it (since the implementation is conventional).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Maverick_%282022%29
>
> If you buy the F150, you're in blue sky country, price-wise.
>
> The middle class in the USA is kinda hollowed out, and it's
> hard to say why all the marketing is for the $100K vehicles.
> Yes, there is a better profit margin on them (F150 options for example).
> But the volume might not be there to keep the company afloat,
> if you price higher than the customers can afford. What I was
> hearing in a web comment section was "length of bank loan == X years"
> for the more expensive offerings. Once the loan length passes 5 years,
> peoples eyes glaze over. Too risky then. The loan period is getting
> too close to the end of the power train warranty.
>
> *******
>
> As for the engines themselves, there are a few that do a decent
> job on miles per gallon. But many of them offer mediocre fuel
> economy. And it's been like that, for quite a few years too.
> This isn't a recent thing.
>
> Paul

I heard an American being impressed by a car that did 30mpg. I thought I must have misheard.
fwiw 75hp for a 3 cyl is very high here.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 09:31:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 17/09/2023 16:20, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> I think it rather depends on whether your desire is to slavishly obey
> speed limits or simply avoid points on your licence.

I make my own decisions.

Generally I do try to stay within the limit, since having a licence is
useful. But that won't prevent me from an occasional "boost" to get past
a know on a motorway.

Generally there is fuck all advantage to speeding in town. Quite aside
from the average speed cameras, it really doesn't save any time.

I drove for hundreds of miles in the US on cruise control. Many times I
was the only car in sight. On both lanes. Texas is very big, as Noel
Coward might have observed.

On 18/09/2023 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/09/2023 13:37, SteveW wrote:
>> On 17/09/2023 08:01, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 16/09/2023 23:57, SteveW wrote:
>>>> On 16/09/2023 22:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> It occurred to me today, having finally got the aircon fixed, that
>>>>> aircon introduces another dimensions into MPG calculations.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is generally reckoned that a car with windows closed has less drag
>>>>> than one with them open, but adding aircon adds a *constant* power
>>>>> drain, irrespective of car speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means for best MPG you want to travel *faster* with aircon, than
>>>>> without it. In order to shorten journey times and hence energy loss
>>>>> per
>>>>> mile from the aircon.
>>>>
>>>> The general rule of thumb used to be - below 40mph, open windows are
>>>> more efficient than aircon and above 40mph it is the other way around.
>>>
>>> *More* efficient than what? Cooling the car's interior? If that's
>>> what you mean, surely it's the other way round. The faster the air
>>> flow, the cooler it will appear to be. You lose heat by evaporative
>>> cooling, so the faster air flow will remove sweat more quickly.
>>
>> The title of the thread says that it is about fuel efficiency. Above
>> around 40mph, the extra fuel needed to overcome drag from open windows
>> becomes greater than the extra fuel needed to drive the air-conditioning.
>>
>>> One question though - is it better to have the aircon recirculating
>>> the cooled internal air, or better to have fresh air being cooled all
>>> the time? I guess it depends on the outside temperature and how
>>> quickly the car's interior suffers from any "greenhouse" effect and
>>> perceived "stuffiness" with closed windows. I always have fresh air
>>> coming in (although in the past when stuck behind a smoking, stinking
>>> diesel I would close the outside vents).
>>
>> Generally I find that recirc is good on very hot days, as the interior
>> temperature is lower than the outside temperature, so the air-con does
>> not need to do as much cooling.
>
> In general on a hot day the interior of a car will *without aircon*  be
> up to 60-70°C.

Only when first starting up. Once the interior has dropped to the set
temperature, the air-con is drawing cooler air from inside the car,
rather than having to cool air from the hotter outside.

> If you want to recycle your stale farts, that's OK with me, but I prefer
> fresh air.
>
>>
>> It is also good for demisting on winter days, as the interior air has
>> already been dried, unlike the outside air.
>>
> Er no. the interior air is full of your sweaty armpits stale breath and
> noxious farts. NEVER use recirculate to demist...heat plus fresh
> dehumified air is what you want.

The air-con is continuously drying the air, so it it dryer than the
outside air. Maybe you haven't noticed, but many cars have a dedicated
demist button - which automatically switches to recirculation, turns the
aircon on, puts the heat on max and runs the fan on high. For those
without such a button, the manual tells you to do just that.

On 18/09/2023 14:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/09/2023 13:52, SteveW wrote:
>> Except that it could still not brake fast enough if the HGV hit
>> something very heavy and solid and came to an almost immediate stop.
>
> You obviously have never seen a car crash, What doesn't happen is that
> things come to an abrupt stop.

It does if the truck ahead, that you are following, runs into a bridge
support and pretty damned quick if it runs into a 500 tonne transformer
movement truck. Both unlikely, but certainly not impossible.

On 19/09/2023 09:44, SteveW wrote:
> On 18/09/2023 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 18/09/2023 13:37, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 17/09/2023 08:01, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>> On 16/09/2023 23:57, SteveW wrote:
>>>>> On 16/09/2023 22:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> It occurred to me today, having finally got the aircon fixed, that
>>>>>> aircon introduces another dimensions into MPG calculations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is generally reckoned that a car with windows closed has less drag
>>>>>> than one with them open, but adding aircon adds a *constant* power
>>>>>> drain, irrespective of car speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means for best MPG you want to travel *faster* with aircon,
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> without it. In order to shorten journey times and hence energy
>>>>>> loss per
>>>>>> mile from the aircon.
>>>>>
>>>>> The general rule of thumb used to be - below 40mph, open windows are
>>>>> more efficient than aircon and above 40mph it is the other way around.
>>>>
>>>> *More* efficient than what? Cooling the car's interior? If that's
>>>> what you mean, surely it's the other way round. The faster the air
>>>> flow, the cooler it will appear to be. You lose heat by evaporative
>>>> cooling, so the faster air flow will remove sweat more quickly.
>>>
>>> The title of the thread says that it is about fuel efficiency. Above
>>> around 40mph, the extra fuel needed to overcome drag from open
>>> windows becomes greater than the extra fuel needed to drive the
>>> air-conditioning.
>>>
>>>> One question though - is it better to have the aircon recirculating
>>>> the cooled internal air, or better to have fresh air being cooled
>>>> all the time? I guess it depends on the outside temperature and how
>>>> quickly the car's interior suffers from any "greenhouse" effect and
>>>> perceived "stuffiness" with closed windows. I always have fresh air
>>>> coming in (although in the past when stuck behind a smoking,
>>>> stinking diesel I would close the outside vents).
>>>
>>> Generally I find that recirc is good on very hot days, as the
>>> interior temperature is lower than the outside temperature, so the
>>> air-con does not need to do as much cooling.
>>
>> In general on a hot day the interior of a car will *without aircon*
>> be up to 60-70°C.
>
> Only when first starting up. Once the interior has dropped to the set
> temperature, the air-con is drawing cooler air from inside the car,
> rather than having to cool air from the hotter outside.
>
>> If you want to recycle your stale farts, that's OK with me, but I
>> prefer fresh air.
>>
>>>
>>> It is also good for demisting on winter days, as the interior air has
>>> already been dried, unlike the outside air.
>>>
>> Er no. the interior air is full of your sweaty armpits stale breath
>> and noxious farts. NEVER use recirculate to demist...heat plus fresh
>> dehumified air is what you want.
>
> The air-con is continuously drying the air, so it it dryer than the
> outside air.

Not with you in the car it aint. You need to understand the difference
between total water content and relative humidity. The air outside the
car will have far lower water content than the air inside, so for a
given temperature inside the car will have lower relative humidity

Maybe you haven't noticed, but many cars have a dedicated
> demist button - which automatically switches to recirculation, turns the
> aircon on, puts the heat on max and runs the fan on high. For those
> without such a button, the manual tells you to do just that.
>
Recirculation is good to get internal temperature up rapidly, but not
for demisting

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.