On 14/05/2022 16:10, Fredxx wrote:
> Shouldn't that be a cubic function of wind speed?
>
> http://drømstørre.dk/wp-content/wind/miller/windpower%20web/en/tour/wres/enrspeed.htm
>
>
> Your engine power will be (wind speed)^4
>
> Of course for petrol cars part throttle economy will be poor.

The power needed to push you through the air is directly proportional to
the power you can extract from the wind.

Both are cubic.

Andy

On 15/05/2022 13:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 15/05/2022 11:47, Mike Rogers wrote:
>> 55MPH is allegedly the most economical speed.
> There is no single  'most economical speed' For a Boeing 737 its around
> 450mph
> For my car its around 65mph. For a bicycle its somewhere around 12mph.
> It is a mixture of three things on a wheeled vehicle - the least energy
> needed is when rolling resistance matches air resistance. The smaller
> the tyre width and the lighter the vehicle the slower that will be...but
> that may not be where the engine is most efficient, that too has its
> optimum speed for best efficiency.
>

Do you have a source for that? I suspect wheeled vehicles use less
energy the slower they go. Electrics (with no real engine losses) are
probably best at bicycle speed.

It's different for the Boeing; air friction of all types (skin, form) is
proportional to speed squared, but induced drag is proportional to the
reciprocal of speed. Usually best economy is when they are the same.

Climbing to thinner air helps a lot too of course.

Andy

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> On 16 May 2022 at 19:35:14 BST, Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/05/2022 11:03, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> mm0fmf wrote:
>>>
>>>> My car in eco mode (8 speed auto) drops in to neutral when you lift
>>>> off over 30mph.
>>>
>>> Mine does that, and when going downhill, will also stop the engine.
>>
>> 2-stroke Saab 9x's did that decades ago because they had some
>> sort of freewheel to prevent the engine from seizing, but also
>> meant no engine braking.
>
> You talking about the Saab 99?
>

Saab 93 and early 96.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
> On 15/05/2022 21:59, Tim+ wrote:
>> Harry Bloomfield Esq <a@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
>>> Clive Arthur has brought this to us :
>>>> Much the same happened to me on a longer trip of 260 miles which I'd done a
>>>> few times. Yes, I'm pretty sure it's the wind that makes the difference.
>>>
>>> ..and me, I beat 60mpg going east but that declined to 50 going west
>>> against the breeze.
>>>
>>
>> I used 50kWhr this weekend to do 260 miles (130 north, 130 south). Not sure
>> what that is in mpg…
>>
>> Tim
>>
>
> About £15, assuming 30p/KwH, as opposed to about
> £50 in petrol at 40mpg
>

Or £2.50 on my current night time tariff.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Tue, 17 May 2022 06:32:46 +1000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 14/05/2022 13:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> Depends on loads of things, not least the envelope where the engine
>> produces the most efficient output - usually c. 3000-3500 rpm for
>> petrol.
>> I once saved 25% on a 100 mile journey by doing 55 instead of 75.
>> You can tell how much of this climate "emergency" is bollocks from the
>> fact that a rigidly enforced 65mph limit on motorways would save the UK
>> quite a bit in fuel consumption. (Although not as much as not travelling
>> at all).
>
> Sadly peak torque, and probably peak engine efficiency in my car is at
> ~95MPH...
>
> When we feel like being economical we take my wife's car. 1300 hatchback
> with cruise control is better at motorway speeds than my 20yo sports
> car. And gets 48MPG instead of 35.
>
> (Off the motorway, OTOH...)
>
> And I'll believe that fuel is too expensive when I stop seeing people
> whizz past me when I'm on the (GPS checked) speed limit.

There will always be some tho are rolling in money or who
have their employer paying for the fuel.

On 5/16/2022 4:41 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 15/05/2022 13:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 15/05/2022 11:47, Mike Rogers wrote:
>>> 55MPH is allegedly the most economical speed.
>> There is no single  'most economical speed' For a Boeing 737 its around 450mph
>> For my car its around 65mph. For a bicycle its somewhere around 12mph.
>> It is a mixture of three things on a wheeled vehicle - the least energy needed is when rolling resistance matches air resistance. The smaller the tyre width and the lighter the vehicle the slower that will be...but that may not be where the engine is most efficient, that too has its optimum speed for best efficiency.
>>
>
> Do you have a source for that? I suspect wheeled vehicles use less energy the slower they go. Electrics (with no real engine losses) are probably best at bicycle speed.
>
> It's different for the Boeing; air friction of all types (skin, form) is proportional to speed squared, but induced drag is proportional to the reciprocal of speed. Usually best economy is when they are the same.
>
> Climbing to thinner air helps a lot too of course.
>
> Andy

50kph is a good speed for ICE vehicles. That's a rough
approximation from the past.

With a BEV, you have a battery cooling system, power steering,
and other accessory loads. There is probably some sort of
tradeoff that makes a moderate speed the best choice for them too.
Just sitting in a BEV, and being comfortable, has a cost.

"Watt hours per mile versus speed" (a graph to show curve shape)

https://i.stack.imgur.com/GYcvN.jpg

Not all BEV cars have the same accessory loads. The Mercedes demo car
with no battery cooling system, it would not be using the HVAC for
that, but cabin comfort might still call for cooling on a hot day.
Just the stupid glass roof on BEV cars, causes the users to
engage the HVAC, more than is absolutely necessary. You can cook
under a glass roof.

BEVs still have creature comforts. That's to stop the early
adopters from whining too much.

Paul

On 17 May 2022 at 01:35:30 BST, "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> With a BEV, you have a battery cooling system, power steering,
> and other accessory loads. There is probably some sort of
> tradeoff that makes a moderate speed the best choice for them too.
> Just sitting in a BEV, and being comfortable, has a cost.
>

You have those loads with an ICE, with the (notable) exception of heating. I'm
not so sure of the battery/engine cooling needs - similar overall?

> "Watt hours per mile versus speed" (a graph to show curve shape)
>
> https://i.stack.imgur.com/GYcvN.jpg
>
> Not all BEV cars have the same accessory loads. The Mercedes demo car
> with no battery cooling system, it would not be using the HVAC for
> that, but cabin comfort might still call for cooling on a hot day.
> Just the stupid glass roof on BEV cars, causes the users to
> engage the HVAC, more than is absolutely necessary. You can cook
> under a glass roof.
>

Why don't they have blinds?!

> BEVs still have creature comforts. That's to stop the early
> adopters from whining too much.

Indeed. It'll be interesting to see what *really* motivates BEV owners once
their use becomes more widespread.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 16/05/2022 22:11, Tim+ wrote:
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> On 16 May 2022 at 19:35:14 BST, Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/05/2022 11:03, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My car in eco mode (8 speed auto) drops in to neutral when you lift
>>>>> off over 30mph.
>>>>
>>>> Mine does that, and when going downhill, will also stop the engine.
>>>
>>> 2-stroke Saab 9x's did that decades ago because they had some
>>> sort of freewheel to prevent the engine from seizing, but also
>>> meant no engine braking.
>>
>> You talking about the Saab 99?
>>
>
> Saab 93 and early 96.
>
> Tim
>
And I think that even when the 2-stroke was replaced by a Vee 4
from Ford, they kept the freewheel device.

On 17 May 2022 at 15:23:07 BST, Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com>
wrote:

> On 16/05/2022 22:11, Tim+ wrote:
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> On 16 May 2022 at 19:35:14 BST, Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/05/2022 11:03, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My car in eco mode (8 speed auto) drops in to neutral when you lift
>>>>>> off over 30mph.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mine does that, and when going downhill, will also stop the engine.
>>>>
>>>> 2-stroke Saab 9x's did that decades ago because they had some
>>>> sort of freewheel to prevent the engine from seizing, but also
>>>> meant no engine braking.
>>>
>>> You talking about the Saab 99?
>>>
>>
>> Saab 93 and early 96.
>>
>> Tim
>>
> And I think that even when the 2-stroke was replaced by a Vee 4
> from Ford, they kept the freewheel device.

The 99 had the slant 4 from Triumph (same engine as the Dolomite). And yes it
had the freewheel, at least initially, but I think they deleted that after a
few months, not sure why.
--
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." -- Thomas Sowell

"Tim Streater" <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote in message
news:jei199FegorU1@mid.individual.net...
>> And I think that even when the 2-stroke was replaced by a Vee 4
>> from Ford, they kept the freewheel device.
>
> The 99 had the slant 4 from Triumph (same engine as the Dolomite).

I too thought the 99 had a V4, but looking at Wikipedia, I'm thinking of the
96 which was the one with the same body as 93 (2-stroke). The 99 was a new
shape.

> And yes it
> had the freewheel, at least initially, but I think they deleted that after
> a
> few months, not sure why.

Probably people wanted engine braking since with a 4-stroke it was now
possible. Saves on brake discs/pads ;-)

On Tuesday, 17 May 2022 at 18:02:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
> "Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
> news:jei199...@mid.individual.net...
> >> And I think that even when the 2-stroke was replaced by a Vee 4
> >> from Ford, they kept the freewheel device.
> >
> > The 99 had the slant 4 from Triumph (same engine as the Dolomite).
>
> I too thought the 99 had a V4, but looking at Wikipedia, I'm thinking of the
> 96 which was the one with the same body as 93 (2-stroke). The 99 was a new
> shape.
>
> > And yes it
> > had the freewheel, at least initially, but I think they deleted that after
> > a
> > few months, not sure why.
>
> Probably people wanted engine braking since with a 4-stroke it was now
> possible. Saves on brake discs/pads ;-)

Saves lives when your brakes are single circuit

On 17/05/2022 15:23, Andrew wrote:
> On 16/05/2022 22:11, Tim+ wrote:
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> On 16 May 2022 at 19:35:14 BST, Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/05/2022 11:03, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My car in eco mode (8 speed auto) drops in to neutral when you lift
>>>>>> off over 30mph.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mine does that, and when going downhill, will also stop the engine.
>>>>
>>>> 2-stroke Saab 9x's did that decades ago because they had some
>>>> sort of freewheel to prevent the engine from seizing, but also
>>>> meant no engine braking.
>>>
>>> You talking about the Saab 99?
>>>
>>
>> Saab 93 and early 96.
>>
>> Tim
>>
> And I think that even when the 2-stroke was replaced by a Vee 4
> from Ford, they kept the freewheel device.

My mates J-Reg (1971) 96 V4 had the freewheel.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 07:33:56 +1000, Animal <tabbypurr@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 17 May 2022 at 18:02:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
>> "Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
>> news:jei199...@mid.individual.net...
>> >> And I think that even when the 2-stroke was replaced by a Vee 4
>> >> from Ford, they kept the freewheel device.
>> >
>> > The 99 had the slant 4 from Triumph (same engine as the Dolomite).
>>
>> I too thought the 99 had a V4, but looking at Wikipedia, I'm thinking
>> of the
>> 96 which was the one with the same body as 93 (2-stroke). The 99 was a
>> new
>> shape.
>>
>> > And yes it
>> > had the freewheel, at least initially, but I think they deleted that
>> after
>> > a
>> > few months, not sure why.
>>
>> Probably people wanted engine braking since with a 4-stroke it was now
>> possible. Saves on brake discs/pads ;-)
>
> Saves lives when your brakes are single circuit

Much cheaper to make them dual circuit.

On 18/05/2022 00:50, lacksey wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 07:33:56 +1000, Animal <tabbypurr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 17 May 2022 at 18:02:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
>>> "Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
>>> news:jei199...@mid.individual.net...
>>> >> And I think that even when the 2-stroke was replaced by a Vee 4
>>> >> from Ford, they kept the freewheel device.
>>> >
>>> > The 99 had the slant 4 from Triumph (same engine as the Dolomite).
>>>
>>> I too thought the 99 had a V4, but looking at Wikipedia, I'm thinking
>>> of the
>>> 96 which was the one with the same body as 93 (2-stroke). The 99 was
>>> a new
>>> shape.
>>>
>>> > And yes it
>>> > had the freewheel, at least initially, but I think they deleted
>>> that after
>>> > a
>>> > few months, not sure why.
>>>
>>> Probably people wanted engine braking since with a 4-stroke it was now
>>> possible. Saves on brake discs/pads ;-)
>>
>> Saves lives when your brakes are single circuit
>
> Much cheaper to make them dual circuit.

Oh dear. Lackseny brain

How can taking a freewheel OFF a car be more expensive than ADDING dual
circuit brakes?

Even for you Rodders, that is pushing the canoe further up shit canal
without a paddle

--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:58:27 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 18/05/2022 00:50, lacksey wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 07:33:56 +1000, Animal <tabbypurr@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 17 May 2022 at 18:02:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
>>>> "Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:jei199...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> >> And I think that even when the 2-stroke was replaced by a Vee 4
>>>> >> from Ford, they kept the freewheel device.
>>>> >
>>>> > The 99 had the slant 4 from Triumph (same engine as the Dolomite).
>>>>
>>>> I too thought the 99 had a V4, but looking at Wikipedia, I'm thinking
>>>> of the
>>>> 96 which was the one with the same body as 93 (2-stroke). The 99 was
>>>> a new
>>>> shape.
>>>>
>>>> > And yes it
>>>> > had the freewheel, at least initially, but I think they deleted
>>>> that after
>>>> > a
>>>> > few months, not sure why.
>>>>
>>>> Probably people wanted engine braking since with a 4-stroke it was now
>>>> possible. Saves on brake discs/pads ;-)
>>>
>>> Saves lives when your brakes are single circuit
>> Much cheaper to make them dual circuit.
>
> Oh dear. Lackseny brain

We'll see...

> How can taking a freewheel OFF a car be more expensive than ADDING dual
> circuit brakes?

What matters is the cost of each approach in future cars made, stupid.

"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:t62g03$kmu$3@dont-email.me...
>>>> > And yes it
>>>> > had the freewheel, at least initially, but I think they deleted
>>>> that after
>>>> > a
>>>> > few months, not sure why.
>>>>
>>>> Probably people wanted engine braking since with a 4-stroke it was now
>>>> possible. Saves on brake discs/pads ;-)
>>>
>>> Saves lives when your brakes are single circuit
>>
>> Much cheaper to make them dual circuit.

When did dual-circuit brakes become mandatory on cars? I presume it happened
earlier on 2-stroke cars because there was no engine braking as a fall-back,
but even on 4-stroke I'd have through it was many decades ago - I'd have
guessed long before the last 2-stroke car.

How smoothly did the freewheel engage again when you applied power - did you
have to be careful to apply power gently to avoid it snatching? I presume it
used a cone-clutch rather than a simple bicycle-type ratchet.

Were there ever any cars which used a compressor to feed the fuel/air
mixture, as opposed to crankcase-scavenged which required a) petrol/oil
mixture, and b) freewheel to avoid the engine being driven quickly on
overrun when there was no oil because of no fuel/air/oil mixture. I presume
crankcase scavenging uses a bit of engine power - evidently it was less than
a crankshaft-powered compressor, or maybe crankcase-scavenging was done to
keep things simpler.

I'm amazed that 2-stroke petrol engines are still legal to use, in these
days of wanting to reduce pollution. Or are burnt-oil fumes regarded as less
of a problem than conventional fuel-exhaust fumes?

On 18/05/2022 13:27, NY wrote:
> I'm amazed that 2-stroke petrol engines are still legal to use, in these
> days of wanting to reduce pollution. Or are burnt-oil fumes regarded as
> less of a problem than conventional fuel-exhaust fumes?

Once you realise that emissions legislations are and always were a way
to increase car sales and induce obsolescence, and had nothing whatever
to do with dangerous climate change, the reason why a tiny market of
mainly agricultural 2 stroke engines has been left alone, is obvious.

No money in it and no obvious alternative.,

--
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> > And yes it
>>>>> > had the freewheel, at least initially, but I think they deleted
>>>>> that after
>>>>> > a
>>>>> > few months, not sure why.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably people wanted engine braking since with a 4-stroke it was
>>>>> now
>>>>> possible. Saves on brake discs/pads ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Saves lives when your brakes are single circuit
>>>
>>> Much cheaper to make them dual circuit.

> When did dual-circuit brakes become mandatory on cars?I presume it
> happened earlier on 2-stroke cars

I don't believe that it did, and I realise you don't mean mandatory
with 2 stroke cars.

> because there was no engine braking as a fall-back, but even on 4-stroke
> I'd have through it was many decades ago

Yes with use, but not mandatory.

> I'd have guessed long before the last 2-stroke car.

I can't even remember when that was. Maybe the Wartburg or Trabant.

Not convinced that either of those bothered with a dual circuit system.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 02:25:42 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 18/05/2022 13:27, NY wrote:
>> I'm amazed that 2-stroke petrol engines are still legal to use, in
>> these days of wanting to reduce pollution. Or are burnt-oil fumes
>> regarded as less of a problem than conventional fuel-exhaust fumes?
>
> Once you realise that emissions legislations are and always were a way
> to increase car sales and induce obsolescence, and had nothing whatever
> to do with dangerous climate change, the reason why a tiny market of
> mainly agricultural 2 stroke engines has been left alone,

It hasn't in many jurisdictions.

> is obvious.
>
> No money in it and no obvious alternative.,
>
>

On Wednesday, 18 May 2022 at 11:15:48 UTC+1, lacksey wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:58:27 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 18/05/2022 00:50, lacksey wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022 07:33:56 +1000, Animal <tabb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, 17 May 2022 at 18:02:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
> >>>> "Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:jei199...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>> >> And I think that even when the 2-stroke was replaced by a Vee 4
> >>>> >> from Ford, they kept the freewheel device.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > The 99 had the slant 4 from Triumph (same engine as the Dolomite).
> >>>>
> >>>> I too thought the 99 had a V4, but looking at Wikipedia, I'm thinking
> >>>> of the
> >>>> 96 which was the one with the same body as 93 (2-stroke). The 99 was
> >>>> a new
> >>>> shape.
> >>>>
> >>>> > And yes it
> >>>> > had the freewheel, at least initially, but I think they deleted
> >>>> that after
> >>>> > a
> >>>> > few months, not sure why.
> >>>>
> >>>> Probably people wanted engine braking since with a 4-stroke it was now
> >>>> possible. Saves on brake discs/pads ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Saves lives when your brakes are single circuit
> >> Much cheaper to make them dual circuit.
> >
> > Oh dear. Lackseny brain
> We'll see...
> > How can taking a freewheel OFF a car be more expensive than ADDING dual
> > circuit brakes?
> What matters is the cost of each approach in future cars made, stupid.

you're beyond stupid.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 08:03:38 +1000, Animal <tabbypurr@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 18 May 2022 at 11:15:48 UTC+1, lacksey wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:58:27 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > On 18/05/2022 00:50, lacksey wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022 07:33:56 +1000, Animal <tabb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Tuesday, 17 May 2022 at 18:02:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
>> >>>> "Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:jei199...@mid.individual.net...
>> >>>> >> And I think that even when the 2-stroke was replaced by a Vee 4
>> >>>> >> from Ford, they kept the freewheel device.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > The 99 had the slant 4 from Triumph (same engine as the
>> Dolomite).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I too thought the 99 had a V4, but looking at Wikipedia, I'm
>> thinking
>> >>>> of the
>> >>>> 96 which was the one with the same body as 93 (2-stroke). The 99
>> was
>> >>>> a new
>> >>>> shape.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > And yes it
>> >>>> > had the freewheel, at least initially, but I think they deleted
>> >>>> that after
>> >>>> > a
>> >>>> > few months, not sure why.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Probably people wanted engine braking since with a 4-stroke it was
>> now
>> >>>> possible. Saves on brake discs/pads ;-)
>> >>>
>> >>> Saves lives when your brakes are single circuit
>> >> Much cheaper to make them dual circuit.
>> >
>> > Oh dear. Lackseny brain
>> We'll see...
>> > How can taking a freewheel OFF a car be more expensive than ADDING
>> dual
>> > circuit brakes?
>> What matters is the cost of each approach in future cars made, stupid.
>
> you're beyond stupid.

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.

On 18/05/2022 23:00, Turnip Fucker wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 02:25:42 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 18/05/2022 13:27, NY wrote:
>>> I'm amazed that 2-stroke petrol engines are still legal to use, in
>>> these days of wanting to reduce pollution. Or are burnt-oil fumes
>>> regarded as less of a problem than conventional fuel-exhaust fumes?
>>
>> Once you realise that emissions legislations are and always were a way
>> to increase car sales and induce obsolescence, and had nothing
>> whatever to do with dangerous climate change, the reason why a tiny
>> market of mainly agricultural 2 stroke engines has been left alone,
>
> It hasn't in many jurisdictions.
Assertion with no evidence to back it up
Go way and play with yourself, Rodders

>
>> is obvious.
>>
>> No money in it and no obvious alternative.,
>>
>>

--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 17:55:08 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 18/05/2022 23:00, Turnip Fucker wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 02:25:42 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/05/2022 13:27, NY wrote:
>>>> I'm amazed that 2-stroke petrol engines are still legal to use, in
>>>> these days of wanting to reduce pollution. Or are burnt-oil fumes
>>>> regarded as less of a problem than conventional fuel-exhaust fumes?
>>>
>>> Once you realise that emissions legislations are and always were a way
>>> to increase car sales and induce obsole scence, and had nothing
>>> whatever to do with dangerous climate change, the reason why a tiny
>>> market of mainly agricultural 2 stroke engines has been left alone,
>> It hasn't in many jurisdictions.

> Assertion with no evidence to back it up

Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should be
able to google <new 2 stroke engines banned> fuckwit.

>>> is obvious.

>>> No money in it and no obvious alternative.,

Pathetic.

On 19/05/2022 10:42, Turnip Fucker wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 17:55:08 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 18/05/2022 23:00, Turnip Fucker wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 02:25:42 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/05/2022 13:27, NY wrote:
>>>>> I'm amazed that 2-stroke petrol engines are still legal to use, in
>>>>> these days of wanting to reduce pollution. Or are burnt-oil fumes
>>>>> regarded as less of a problem than conventional fuel-exhaust fumes?
>>>>
>>>> Once you realise that emissions legislations are and always were a
>>>> way to increase car sales and induce obsole scence, and had nothing
>>>> whatever to do with dangerous climate change, the reason why a tiny
>>>> market of mainly agricultural 2 stroke engines has been left alone,
>>>  It hasn't in many jurisdictions.
>
>> Assertion with no evidence to back it up
>
> Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should be
> able to google  <new 2 stroke engines banned> fuckwit.

Quite, so provide the evidence.

>>>> is obvious.
>
>>>> No money in it and no obvious alternative.,
>
> Pathetic.

Yes, when you say it's so easy to provide the evidence.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 20:19:19 +1000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 19/05/2022 10:42, Turnip Fucker wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 17:55:08 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/05/2022 23:00, Turnip Fucker wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 02:25:42 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 18/05/2022 13:27, NY wrote:
>>>>>> I'm amazed that 2-stroke petrol engines are still legal to use, in
>>>>>> these days of wanting to reduce pollution. Or are burnt-oil fumes
>>>>>> regarded as less of a problem than conventional fuel-exhaust fumes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Once you realise that emissions legislations are and always were a
>>>>> way to increase car sales and induce obsole scence, and had nothing
>>>>> whatever to do with dangerous climate change, the reason why a tiny
>>>>> market of mainly agricultural 2 stroke engines has been left alone,
>>>> It hasn't in many jurisdictions.
>>
>>> Assertion with no evidence to back it up

>> Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should be
>> able to google <new 2 stroke engines banned> fuckwit.

> Quite, so provide the evidence.

Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should be
able to google <new 2 stroke engines banned> fuckwit.

>>>>> is obvious.

>>>>> No money in it and no obvious alternative.,

>> Pathetic.