On 19/09/2023 09:49, SteveW wrote:
> 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.
>

As I said, you have never seen a motor accident

If truck runs into a bridge support the trailer will go upwards.

I saw a mini doing 100mph at a race circuit hit a tyre barrier only 5
feet deep head on at ~110mph. It leapt about 10 ft into the air.

Any truck that hits a bridge support will not end up in the middle of
the road at a dead stop instantly. The rear will continue on and the
while thing will rotate around the impact in in some dimensions or other.
The far greater danger is low visibility and/or inattention. A line of
stationary traffic seen too late and the drivers behind the leaders not
having enough recation time or fiddling with their mobiles is what
causes multiple car piles ups. That is the *only* case where you may on
a motorway encounter what amounts to a cul-de-sac where there is no escape.
And that is why smart drivers hit the hazards as soon as they see it to
pass the message back as quickly as possible to increase reaction times

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 18/09/2023 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 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.
>

He seems to pull apart engines with an unknown service history and is
rather scathing about any small engine.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 19/09/2023 10:55, alan_m wrote:
> On 18/09/2023 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> He seems to pull apart engines with an unknown service history and is
> rather scathing about any small engine.
>
I see you haven't watched it very much.

He is pretty scathing about many big engines, too.

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 19/09/2023 10:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 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
>
>

Not for demisting but on my car with just air con (not climate control)
there are manual buttons for turning on air con, for turning on
re-circulation and a rotary knob for hot/cool. If the air con and
re-circulation are both off and the rotary knob is the turned to the
fullest cool position both air con and re-circulation are automatically
selected, and airflow to the foot-well is disabled. So, if you want a
colder interior the car automatically selects re-circulation, which can
then be manually overridden.

For demisting the windscreen there are dedicated buttons for air to the
windscreen and the heated front screen. Ford recommend turning off
re-circulation for demisting as this allows moist air to be expelled
from the cabin. Incoming air is dried by te air con.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 19/09/2023 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 19/09/2023 09:49, SteveW wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> As I said, you have never seen a motor accident
>
> If  truck runs into a bridge support the trailer will go upwards.
>
> I saw a mini doing 100mph at a race circuit hit a tyre barrier only 5
> feet deep head on at ~110mph. It leapt about 10 ft into the air.
>
> Any truck that hits a bridge support will not end up in the middle of
> the road at a dead stop instantly. The rear will continue on and the
> while thing will rotate around the impact in in some dimensions or other.
> The far greater danger is low visibility and/or inattention. A line of
> stationary traffic seen too late and the drivers behind the leaders not
> having enough recation time or fiddling with their mobiles is what
> causes multiple car piles ups. That is the *only* case where you may on
> a motorway encounter what amounts to a cul-de-sac where there is no escape.
> And that is why smart drivers hit the hazards as soon as they see it to
> pass the message back as quickly as possible to increase reaction times
>

The problem with running into the back of a HGV is that the bonnet of
your car is likely to go under the back of the truck and the bed of the
truck decapitates you. Those under-run bars on the back or side of the
HGV could be as useful as a chocolate teapot when closing at 60mph

>

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 19/09/2023 10:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
<snipo>

> Recirculation is good to get internal temperature up rapidly,

Agreed

> but not for demisting

It is if you have air con that is continuously drying the air at a
greater rate you breath adding water vapour. As happens for most
air-cons in cars.

Feel free to quote experiments that back up your claim.

On 19/09/2023 11:46, alan_m wrote:
> For demisting the windscreen there are dedicated buttons for air to the
> windscreen and the heated front screen.  Ford recommend turning off
> re-circulation for demisting as this allows moist air to be expelled
> from the cabin. Incoming air is dried by te air con.

That has been my experience.

Recycle for fastest temeperature change but use incoming air for best RH
levels.
--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 19/09/2023 11:56, alan_m wrote:
> On 19/09/2023 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 19/09/2023 09:49, SteveW wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> As I said, you have never seen a motor accident
>>
>> If  truck runs into a bridge support the trailer will go upwards.
>>
>> I saw a mini doing 100mph at a race circuit hit a tyre barrier only 5
>> feet deep head on at ~110mph. It leapt about 10 ft into the air.
>>
>> Any truck that hits a bridge support will not end up in the middle of
>> the road at a dead stop instantly. The rear will continue on and the
>> while thing will rotate around the impact in in some dimensions or other.
>> The far greater danger is low visibility and/or inattention. A line of
>> stationary traffic seen too late and the drivers behind the leaders
>> not having enough recation time or fiddling with their mobiles is what
>> causes multiple car piles ups. That is the *only* case where you may
>> on a motorway encounter what amounts to a cul-de-sac where there is no
>> escape.
>> And that is why smart drivers hit the hazards as soon as they see it
>> to pass the message back as quickly as possible to increase reaction
>> times
>>
>
> The problem with running into the back of a HGV is that the bonnet of
> your car is likely to go under the back of the truck and the bed of the
> truck decapitates you. Those under-run bars on the back or side of the
> HGV could be as useful as a chocolate teapot when closing at 60mph
>
I think I would throw myself sideways

I have a LOT of car in front of me too.

>>
>

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 19/09/2023 12:01, Fredxx wrote:
> On 19/09/2023 10:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> <snipo>
>
>> Recirculation is good to get internal temperature up rapidly,
>
> Agreed
>
>> but not for demisting
>
> It is if you have air con that is continuously drying the air at a
> greater rate you breath adding water vapour.  As happens for most
> air-cons in cars.
>
> Feel free to quote experiments that back up your claim.

It is what I found years ago. Just by playing with the controls

You need to get the warm sticky air out, not recycle it.

What's inside has more water in it, cos its warmer, than what it is
outside, and if it is misting, by definition it is saturated at the
temperature of the windscreen. It ain't misting on the outside, ergo
THAT air is much lower in water content.

So get it in and get the cabin air OUT

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 19/09/2023 12:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 19/09/2023 11:56, alan_m wrote:
>> On 19/09/2023 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 19/09/2023 09:49, SteveW wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I said, you have never seen a motor accident
>>>
>>> If  truck runs into a bridge support the trailer will go upwards.
>>>
>>> I saw a mini doing 100mph at a race circuit hit a tyre barrier only 5
>>> feet deep head on at ~110mph. It leapt about 10 ft into the air.
>>>
>>> Any truck that hits a bridge support will not end up in the middle of
>>> the road at a dead stop instantly. The rear will continue on and the
>>> while thing will rotate around the impact in in some dimensions or
>>> other.
>>> The far greater danger is low visibility and/or inattention. A line
>>> of stationary traffic seen too late and the drivers behind the
>>> leaders not having enough recation time or fiddling with their
>>> mobiles is what causes multiple car piles ups. That is the *only*
>>> case where you may on a motorway encounter what amounts to a
>>> cul-de-sac where there is no escape.
>>> And that is why smart drivers hit the hazards as soon as they see it
>>> to pass the message back as quickly as possible to increase reaction
>>> times
>>>
>>
>> The problem with running into the back of a HGV is that the bonnet of
>> your car is likely to go under the back of the truck and the bed of
>> the truck decapitates you. Those under-run bars on the back or side of
>> the HGV could be as useful as a chocolate teapot when closing at 60mph
>>
> I think I would throw myself sideways
>
> I have a LOT of car in front of me too.

Another thought.

Whilst the FRONT of the truck might stop instantaneously, the rear of it
would most certainly not, otherwise the bridge would collapse. The force
applied to stop a whole truck dead is enough to destroy a bridge support

In relity it would jacknife or concertina or both
>
>>>
>>
>

--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

– Ludwig von Mises

On 19/09/2023 12:01, Fredxx wrote:
> On 19/09/2023 10:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> <snipo>
>
>> Recirculation is good to get internal temperature up rapidly,
>
> Agreed
>
>> but not for demisting
>
> It is if you have air con that is continuously drying the air at a
> greater rate you breath adding water vapour.  As happens for most
> air-cons in cars.
>
> Feel free to quote experiments that back up your claim.

A follow-up to my post about my car's rotary hot/cold knob and what
happens when fully cool is selected.....

The knob turned fully to the hot direction hot has an additional final
non-latching switch which, irrespective of the other settings,
automatically selects (hot) air to the windscreen, air con on and turns
off re-circulation. The indication lights on the switches identify this
mode. So, on a Ford their design automatically de-selects re-circulation
for windscreen demisting. This hot dried air can also be directed
towards the front side windows.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 12:24:53 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 19/09/2023 12:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > On 19/09/2023 11:56, alan_m wrote:
> >> On 19/09/2023 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >>> On 19/09/2023 09:49, SteveW wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> As I said, you have never seen a motor accident
> >>>
> >>> If truck runs into a bridge support the trailer will go upwards.
> >>>
> >>> I saw a mini doing 100mph at a race circuit hit a tyre barrier only 5
> >>> feet deep head on at ~110mph. It leapt about 10 ft into the air.
> >>>
> >>> Any truck that hits a bridge support will not end up in the middle of
> >>> the road at a dead stop instantly. The rear will continue on and the
> >>> while thing will rotate around the impact in in some dimensions or
> >>> other.
> >>> The far greater danger is low visibility and/or inattention. A line
> >>> of stationary traffic seen too late and the drivers behind the
> >>> leaders not having enough recation time or fiddling with their
> >>> mobiles is what causes multiple car piles ups. That is the *only*
> >>> case where you may on a motorway encounter what amounts to a
> >>> cul-de-sac where there is no escape.
> >>> And that is why smart drivers hit the hazards as soon as they see it
> >>> to pass the message back as quickly as possible to increase reaction
> >>> times
> >>>
> >>
> >> The problem with running into the back of a HGV is that the bonnet of
> >> your car is likely to go under the back of the truck and the bed of
> >> the truck decapitates you. Those under-run bars on the back or side of
> >> the HGV could be as useful as a chocolate teapot when closing at 60mph
> >>
> > I think I would throw myself sideways
> >
> > I have a LOT of car in front of me too.
> Another thought.
>
> Whilst the FRONT of the truck might stop instantaneously, the rear of it
> would most certainly not, otherwise the bridge would collapse. The force
> applied to stop a whole truck dead is enough to destroy a bridge support
>
> In relity it would jacknife or concertina or both
> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> “Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”
>
> – Ludwig von Mises
Here we go with the old gag about what goes through a fly's mind when it hits a car windscreen head on? For those too young to know - it's arse

On 17/09/2023 09:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
> If you really want to save fuel, you'd slipstream an HGV ... needs balls
> of steel though.

I sometimes follow one, safe in the knowledge that my brakes are *much*
better than his - I only need to allow for my reaction time.

Which is OK until another catches up with us. Where I really don't want
to be is *between* two HGVs.

Andy