On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:22:14 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:

>John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 22:39:45 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
>> <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
>>>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
>>>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
>>>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
>>>>> the next full moon.
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
>>>> ratings of his car.
>>>>
>>> Not necessarily (though I don?t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
>>> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
>>> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it?s 19 years old!
>>>
>>> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I?d expect 30 MPG it will dip
>>> below if it?s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
>>> calculated,
>>>
>>> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
>>> lower, though as it?s tank is longer than drives I?m likely to do, so
>>> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
>>>
>>> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
>>> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
>>> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
>>> a bigger engine.
>>>
>>> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
>>> improve the rated MPG.
>>>
>>> But you certainly can
>>>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
>>>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
>>>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
>>>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
>>>>
>>>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
>>>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
>>>>
>>>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
>>>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
>>>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
>>>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
>>>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
>>>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
>>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>
>> Well, I've always thought that a long and tedious discussion about MPG
>> was, at best irrational. If you want fuel economy it is easy... just
>> buy a tiny little car. Or, if you must have some hulking great monster
>> of an automobile why worry about MPG?
>>
>> What is the old saying? "You pays your money and you takes your
>> choice".
>
>Guess for some makes a big difference to household expenses, I do low
>enough annual miles for it to be broadly not a issue, even now with high
>fuel costs I’d be more concerned about house energy than the car.
>
>Roger Merriman

I can't say how auto fuel costs effect family expenses. When I grew
up, in a little New England town, people used to walk. To work, to the
store, to church. The Car was only for Sunday afternoon drives (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 3:39:48 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
> >>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
> >>
> >> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
> >> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
> >> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
> >> the next full moon.
> >
> > Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
> > ratings of his car.
> >
> Not necessarily (though I don’t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it’s 19 years old!
>
> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I’d expect 30 MPG it will dip
> below if it’s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
> calculated,
>
> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
> lower, though as it’s tank is longer than drives I’m likely to do, so
> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
>
> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
> a bigger engine.
>
> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
> improve the rated MPG.

You certainly can get better than rated mileage. I do that all the time.
EPA mileage for our car is 29 city, 39 highway, 32 combined. Excluding the trips for which we pulled our
camping trailer, our car's lifetime average is about 40 mpg. Most of that is due to the fact that our
driving is almost all highway. (I use the bikes for short trips whenever possible.)

There's more to it than driving gently. Of course, speed kills gas mileage. I almost always set
cruise control to the limit. And between 65 and 70 mph, my car seems to get very close to its
rated highway mileage. But I think I do much better in my city driving. One trick is to accelerate
at full throttle in the highest practical gear, IOW upshifting as soon as possible. (Full throttle
causes less intake restriction and higher efficiency.)

Much more important is timing things so braking and acceleration are minimized. That requires
paying attention up ahead so as to time traffic lights, rolling through on green if possible by slowing
earlier. I also choose traffic lanes by observing conditions ahead. And I choose routes with gas
mileage in mind. For one drive I do frequently, I have a choice between a 70 mph freeway on a
bit of longer route, or a 55 mph highway that's a bit shorter. The time difference is minimal (maybe
two minutes) so I use the 55 mph road.

There are other tricks as well. I do some "hypermiling" coasting, depending on the situation. I'll
not draft semis, but I will drive two seconds behind one on a freeway for that bit of tailwind.

In any case, these behaviors can add some gas mileage - perhaps ten to fifteen percent? But
there's nothing that is going to have an old Ford Taurus get 45mph on a freeway going into
a headwind. That's just another of Tom's many fantasies.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 3:39:48 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
> >>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
> >>
> >> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
> >> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
> >> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
> >> the next full moon.
> >
> > Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
> > ratings of his car.
> >
> Not necessarily (though I don’t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it’s 19 years old!
>
> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I’d expect 30 MPG it will dip
> below if it’s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
> calculated,
>
> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
> lower, though as it’s tank is longer than drives I’m likely to do, so
> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
>
> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
> a bigger engine.
>
> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
> improve the rated MPG.
>
> But you certainly can
> > I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
> > remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
> > ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
> > https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
>
>
> >
> > and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
> > https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
> >
> > Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
> > trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
> > https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
> >
> > (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
> > tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
> > on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
> > was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
> > truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
> > Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
> >
> Roger Merriman
Frank is trying to pretend that he knows something about cars. What he knows could be fit in a matchbox. A Ford Taurus like my 2007 is very aerodynamic. The two things that MAY effect gas mileage is weight IF you are doing any significant climbing. And aerodynamic drag. Frank, as the jackass he is knows nothing about either. (Of course there ARE also the smaller things like oil weight and engine wear but my Taurus has less than 70,000 miles on an engine built to last 200,000)

Since my speed up the 6,000 feet to Reno while GOING 65 mph most of the time and having been 5 years since the last tuneup, still gave me 29 mph. Round trip. I just got it tuned up etc. and going on a 30 mile round trip it got 26 mpg. About 30% of it was city driving in traffic.

Driving from Phoenix to San Leandro is normally up-wind but I don't have any idea what the wind conditions actually were. On the return trip my mpg indicator showed 45 mpg. Was that an error in the instrument? At the time I assumed so but the fuel usage showed that was probably correct. When you have a jackass like Frank saying things he knows absolutely nothing about you have to simply ignore the fool.

On 3/28/2022 10:20 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
>>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
>>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
>>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
>>>
>>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
>>>
>>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
>>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
>>
>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
> Frank is trying to pretend that he knows something about cars. What he knows could be fit in a matchbox. A Ford Taurus like my 2007 is very aerodynamic. The two things that MAY effect gas mileage is weight IF you are doing any significant climbing. And aerodynamic drag. Frank, as the jackass he is knows nothing about either.

What I know about gas mileage: For recreation, I once worked up an
equation to give an approximate prediction of a car's instantaneous
miles per gallon. Here it is:

MPG = Eff * BPG / (Crr*W + %G*W + .5*rho*Cd*Af*(V-ws)^2)

Some of the inherent simplifications are these: Engine thermal
efficiency is expressed as a constant, although it actually varies
markedly with throttle opening. Similarly, tire rolling resistance is
not actually constant. It varies with the amount of driving force the
tire is supplying.

Tom can illustrate how much he knows about this by commenting on the
equation in detail.

Let's discuss it, Tom.

--
- Frank Krygowski

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:22:14 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
> <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>
>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 22:39:45 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
>>> <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
>>>>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
>>>>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
>>>>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
>>>>>> the next full moon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
>>>>> ratings of his car.
>>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily (though I don?t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
>>>> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
>>>> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it?s 19 years old!
>>>>
>>>> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I?d expect 30 MPG it will dip
>>>> below if it?s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
>>>> calculated,
>>>>
>>>> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
>>>> lower, though as it?s tank is longer than drives I?m likely to do, so
>>>> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
>>>>
>>>> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
>>>> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
>>>> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
>>>> a bigger engine.
>>>>
>>>> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
>>>> improve the rated MPG.
>>>>
>>>> But you certainly can
>>>>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
>>>>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
>>>>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
>>>>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
>>>>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
>>>>>
>>>>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
>>>>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
>>>>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
>>>>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
>>>>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
>>>>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
>>>>>
>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>
>>> Well, I've always thought that a long and tedious discussion about MPG
>>> was, at best irrational. If you want fuel economy it is easy... just
>>> buy a tiny little car. Or, if you must have some hulking great monster
>>> of an automobile why worry about MPG?
>>>
>>> What is the old saying? "You pays your money and you takes your
>>> choice".
>>
>> Guess for some makes a big difference to household expenses, I do low
>> enough annual miles for it to be broadly not a issue, even now with high
>> fuel costs I’d be more concerned about house energy than the car.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> I can't say how auto fuel costs effect family expenses. When I grew
> up, in a little New England town, people used to walk. To work, to the
> store, to church. The Car was only for Sunday afternoon drives (:-)

That’s why within reason I’m fairly relaxed about petrol since generally I
only use the car once a week or so, though not for Sunday drives!

Roger Merriman

russellseaton1@yahoo.com <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 5:39:48 PM UTC-5, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
>>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
>>>>
>>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
>>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
>>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
>>>> the next full moon.
>>>
>>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
>>> ratings of his car.
>>>
>> Not necessarily (though I don’t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
>> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
>> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it’s 19 years old!
>>
>> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I’d expect 30 MPG it will dip
>> below if it’s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
>> calculated,
>>
>> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
>> lower, though as it’s tank is longer than drives I’m likely to do, so
>> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
>
> OK. Your old Volvo got up to 35 mpg occasionally. In the ideal
> situation. It was rated at 28 mpg. So a 25% improvement. Was this 28
> rating for overall or highway only or city? That kind of matters.

Not ideal or rather it’s still mixed use, it’s simply a higher percentage
of motorways for that tank.

Ideal for it would be long drive cross country roads ie slower speeds where
it seems to do well, but I’ve never just done a tank doing that so no idea
how well it does on that.
>
> 2000 Ford Taurus rating is up to 20 city / 28 highway.
> 2010 Ford Taurus rating is up to 18 city / 28 highway.
> 2020 Ford Taurus rating is up to 22 city / 32 highway.
>
> Tommy boy says he got up to 45 mpg driving INTO a headwind. So Tommy boy
> got 60% better mpg if he had an older 2000 or 2010 Taurus. And Tommy got
> 40% better mpg if he had a 2020 Taurus.
>
> The numbers you gave are possibly, maybe, probably believable. The
> numbers Tommy boy gave are a flat out, made up, fabricated, total LIE.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
>> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
>> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
>> a bigger engine.
>>
>> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
>> improve the rated MPG.
>>
>> But you certainly can
>>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
>>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
>>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
>>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
>>
>>
>>>
>>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
>>>
>>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
>>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
>>>
>>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
>>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
>>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
>>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
>>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
>>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
>>>
>> Roger Merriman
>

Roger Merriman

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:11:06 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:22:14 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
> > <ro...@sarlet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 22:39:45 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
> >>> <ro...@sarlet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
> >>>>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
> >>>>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
> >>>>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
> >>>>>> the next full moon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
> >>>>> ratings of his car.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Not necessarily (though I don?t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
> >>>> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
> >>>> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it?s 19 years old!
> >>>>
> >>>> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I?d expect 30 MPG it will dip
> >>>> below if it?s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
> >>>> calculated,
> >>>>
> >>>> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
> >>>> lower, though as it?s tank is longer than drives I?m likely to do, so
> >>>> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
> >>>>
> >>>> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
> >>>> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
> >>>> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
> >>>> a bigger engine.
> >>>>
> >>>> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
> >>>> improve the rated MPG.
> >>>>
> >>>> But you certainly can
> >>>>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
> >>>>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
> >>>>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
> >>>>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
> >>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
> >>>>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
> >>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
> >>>>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
> >>>>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
> >>>>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
> >>>>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
> >>>>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
> >>>>>
> >>>> Roger Merriman
> >>>
> >>> Well, I've always thought that a long and tedious discussion about MPG
> >>> was, at best irrational. If you want fuel economy it is easy... just
> >>> buy a tiny little car. Or, if you must have some hulking great monster
> >>> of an automobile why worry about MPG?
> >>>
> >>> What is the old saying? "You pays your money and you takes your
> >>> choice".
> >>
> >> Guess for some makes a big difference to household expenses, I do low
> >> enough annual miles for it to be broadly not a issue, even now with high
> >> fuel costs I’d be more concerned about house energy than the car.
> >>
> >> Roger Merriman
> >
> > I can't say how auto fuel costs effect family expenses. When I grew
> > up, in a little New England town, people used to walk. To work, to the
> > store, to church. The Car was only for Sunday afternoon drives (:-)
> That’s why within reason I’m fairly relaxed about petrol since generally I
> only use the car once a week or so, though not for Sunday drives!

Watching the reactions of Frank and John is comedic. Like all morons they want everyone to believe that what I actually did, according to these asses - I didn't do. Exactly what mental condition do these people have?

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> russell...@yahoo.com <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 5:39:48 PM UTC-5, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
> >>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg..
> >>>>
> >>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
> >>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
> >>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
> >>>> the next full moon.
> >>>
> >>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
> >>> ratings of his car.
> >>>
> >> Not necessarily (though I don’t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
> >> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
> >> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it’s 19 years old!
> >>
> >> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I’d expect 30 MPG it will dip
> >> below if it’s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
> >> calculated,
> >>
> >> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
> >> lower, though as it’s tank is longer than drives I’m likely to do, so
> >> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
> >
> > OK. Your old Volvo got up to 35 mpg occasionally. In the ideal
> > situation. It was rated at 28 mpg. So a 25% improvement. Was this 28
> > rating for overall or highway only or city? That kind of matters.
> Not ideal or rather it’s still mixed use, it’s simply a higher percentage
> of motorways for that tank.
>
> Ideal for it would be long drive cross country roads ie slower speeds where
> it seems to do well, but I’ve never just done a tank doing that so no idea
> how well it does on that.
> >
> > 2000 Ford Taurus rating is up to 20 city / 28 highway.
> > 2010 Ford Taurus rating is up to 18 city / 28 highway.
> > 2020 Ford Taurus rating is up to 22 city / 32 highway.
> >
> > Tommy boy says he got up to 45 mpg driving INTO a headwind. So Tommy boy
> > got 60% better mpg if he had an older 2000 or 2010 Taurus. And Tommy got
> > 40% better mpg if he had a 2020 Taurus.
> >
> > The numbers you gave are possibly, maybe, probably believable. The
> > numbers Tommy boy gave are a flat out, made up, fabricated, total LIE.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
> >> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
> >> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
> >> a bigger engine.
> >>
> >> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
> >> improve the rated MPG.
> >>
> >> But you certainly can
> >>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
> >>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
> >>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
> >>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
> >>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
> >>>
> >>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
> >>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
> >>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
> >>>
> >>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
> >>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
> >>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
> >>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
> >>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
> >>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
> >>>
> >> Roger Merriman
On my drive to Phoenix, I had to drive over the the coastal range (2,500 feet) and what used to be the Tehachapi (4,000). Perhaps the mileage on those slight grades reduced the mileage but the trip was 740 miles and mostly flat so the slight loss from the very slight grades has essentially no effect.. But Frank with his spectacular mechanical engineering degree doesn't even understand that. Him and John think that the summer 10 mph northerly wind make a HUGE difference in mileage. The speed limit in Arizona is 80 mph for all vehicles And tractors can pull 3 trailers. Why is it that my mileage didn't change when I went up to 80? For that matter - limited access freeways in California have a 70 mph speed limit and my car went 25 miles of that. The Ford Taurus used fuel injection that is controlled by the auto computer and will lean out the mixture while the cylinder heat is within the proper range. That piece of shit Volvo cannot begin to match the engineering in the most common Ford.

Frank claims his piece of shit VOLVO, makes 25% better than its rating. Well that would be 35 mpg for my Ford. The ratings of a 2010 Taurus is 28 mpg highway and yet it is a large blocky car entirely different from the 2007 model. There is really something wrong with someone that is willing to say that I didn't do what I did. We also had John telling us that I was never in the Air Force. And then he claimed that Guam wasn't a war zone despite the Air Force stating it was and despite the fact that I was given a medal for being in an active war zone. These people have very serious mental problems. I really don't understand what is going on with these guys. Russell tells us about how "well educated" he is and cannot do simple arithmetic and was writing non-English English. Flunky says that anyone would know who he is.. despite his fear of being identified to the point that he uses a pseudonym. What the hell is going on with these people? They don't ride bicycles. Well maybe Frank takes the occasional ride but I would hardly rate him as a bicyclist. That is why these people cannot speak about bicycles. They hardly know what one looks like.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 13:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:11:06 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:22:14 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
>> > <ro...@sarlet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 22:39:45 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
>> >>> <ro...@sarlet.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
>> >>>>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
>> >>>>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
>> >>>>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
>> >>>>>> the next full moon.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
>> >>>>> ratings of his car.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Not necessarily (though I don?t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
>> >>>> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
>> >>>> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it?s 19 years old!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I?d expect 30 MPG it will dip
>> >>>> below if it?s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
>> >>>> calculated,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
>> >>>> lower, though as it?s tank is longer than drives I?m likely to do, so
>> >>>> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
>> >>>> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
>> >>>> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
>> >>>> a bigger engine.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
>> >>>> improve the rated MPG.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But you certainly can
>> >>>>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
>> >>>>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
>> >>>>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
>> >>>>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
>> >>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
>> >>>>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
>> >>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
>> >>>>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
>> >>>>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
>> >>>>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
>> >>>>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
>> >>>>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Roger Merriman
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, I've always thought that a long and tedious discussion about MPG
>> >>> was, at best irrational. If you want fuel economy it is easy... just
>> >>> buy a tiny little car. Or, if you must have some hulking great monster
>> >>> of an automobile why worry about MPG?
>> >>>
>> >>> What is the old saying? "You pays your money and you takes your
>> >>> choice".
>> >>
>> >> Guess for some makes a big difference to household expenses, I do low
>> >> enough annual miles for it to be broadly not a issue, even now with high
>> >> fuel costs I’d be more concerned about house energy than the car.
>> >>
>> >> Roger Merriman
>> >
>> > I can't say how auto fuel costs effect family expenses. When I grew
>> > up, in a little New England town, people used to walk. To work, to the
>> > store, to church. The Car was only for Sunday afternoon drives (:-)
>> That’s why within reason I’m fairly relaxed about petrol since generally I
>> only use the car once a week or so, though not for Sunday drives!
>
>Watching the reactions of Frank and John is comedic. Like all morons they want everyone to believe that what I actually did, according to these asses - I didn't do. Exactly what mental condition do these people have?

Well Tommy, you got it backward once again. Nobody cares what you
don't do because of what you do do.

Or in simple terms (we know you lack education) you don't tell the
truth and you do tell lies - continuously, one might say.

So tell us Tommy. Do you lie because you don't know what you are
talking about? Or do you lie in an attempt to make people believe you
are some sort of Hero?

Tell us Tommy, enquiring minds want to know.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:34:07 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Watching the reactions of Frank and John is comedic. Like all morons they want everyone to believe that what I actually did, according to these asses - I didn't do. Exactly what mental condition do these people have?

Tom, we're not talking about what you actually did. We're talking about what you "remember" you did. As usual, those are
very, very different. When you talk about something physically impossible - averaging 45 mph in a Ford Taurus into a
headwind - you're "memory" is screwing up yet again.

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 2:25:42 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On my drive to Phoenix, I had to drive over the the coastal range (2,500 feet) and what used to be the Tehachapi (4,000). Perhaps the mileage on those slight grades reduced the mileage but the trip was 740 miles and mostly flat so the slight loss from the very slight grades has essentially no effect. But Frank with his spectacular mechanical engineering degree doesn't even understand that.

I understand the effect of grade on gas consumption both theoretically and from practical experience. If you think it makes
essentially no effect, why do you suppose automakers have worked hard to reduce weight over the years? Why are
engine blocks and transmission housings no longer exclusively cast iron, but now aluminum?

> Him and John think that the summer 10 mph northerly wind make a HUGE difference in mileage. The speed limit in Arizona is 80 mph for all vehicles And tractors can pull 3 trailers. Why is it that my mileage didn't change when I went up to 80?

Wow. Are you seriously claiming driving speed has no effect on gas consumption? Tom, you may "remember" that it
makes no difference, but that just proves how bad your "memory" is.

> Frank claims his piece of shit VOLVO, makes 25% better than its rating.

No, Tom, I don't drive a Volvo, and I never said I did. Your "memory" is wrong again.

Sorry folks, I keep trying to ignore Tom's nonsense. But it's difficult.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:43:25 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:25:42 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> > russell...@yahoo.com <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 5:39:48 PM UTC-5, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> > >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > >>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > >>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
>> > >>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
>> > >>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
>> > >>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
>> > >>>> the next full moon.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
>> > >>> ratings of his car.
>> > >>>
>> > >> Not necessarily (though I don’t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
>> > >> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
>> > >> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it’s 19 years old!
>> > >>
>> > >> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I’d expect 30 MPG it will dip
>> > >> below if it’s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
>> > >> calculated,
>> > >>
>> > >> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
>> > >> lower, though as it’s tank is longer than drives I’m likely to do, so
>> > >> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
>> > >
>> > > OK. Your old Volvo got up to 35 mpg occasionally. In the ideal
>> > > situation. It was rated at 28 mpg. So a 25% improvement. Was this 28
>> > > rating for overall or highway only or city? That kind of matters.
>> > Not ideal or rather it’s still mixed use, it’s simply a higher percentage
>> > of motorways for that tank.
>> >
>> > Ideal for it would be long drive cross country roads ie slower speeds where
>> > it seems to do well, but I’ve never just done a tank doing that so no idea
>> > how well it does on that.
>> > >
>> > > 2000 Ford Taurus rating is up to 20 city / 28 highway.
>> > > 2010 Ford Taurus rating is up to 18 city / 28 highway.
>> > > 2020 Ford Taurus rating is up to 22 city / 32 highway.
>> > >
>> > > Tommy boy says he got up to 45 mpg driving INTO a headwind. So Tommy boy
>> > > got 60% better mpg if he had an older 2000 or 2010 Taurus. And Tommy got
>> > > 40% better mpg if he had a 2020 Taurus.
>> > >
>> > > The numbers you gave are possibly, maybe, probably believable. The
>> > > numbers Tommy boy gave are a flat out, made up, fabricated, total LIE.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
>> > >> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
>> > >> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
>> > >> a bigger engine.
>> > >>
>> > >> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
>> > >> improve the rated MPG.
>> > >>
>> > >> But you certainly can
>> > >>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
>> > >>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
>> > >>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
>> > >>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
>> > >>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
>> > >>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
>> > >>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
>> > >>>
>> > >>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
>> > >>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
>> > >>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
>> > >>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
>> > >>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
>> > >>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
>> > >>>
>> > >> Roger Merriman
>> On my drive to Phoenix, I had to drive over the the coastal range (2,500 feet) and what used to be the Tehachapi (4,000). Perhaps the mileage on those slight grades reduced the mileage but the trip was 740 miles and mostly flat so the slight loss from the very slight grades has essentially no effect. But Frank with his spectacular mechanical engineering degree doesn't even understand that. Him and John think that the summer 10 mph northerly wind make a HUGE difference in mileage. The speed limit in Arizona is 80 mph for all vehicles And tractors can pull 3 trailers. Why is it that my mileage didn't change when I went up to 80? For that matter - limited access freeways in California have a 70 mph speed limit and my car went 25 miles of that. The Ford Taurus used fuel injection that is controlled by the auto computer and will lean out the mixture while the cylinder heat is within the proper range. That piece of shit Volvo cannot begin to match the engineering in the most common
Ford.
>>
>> Frank claims his piece of shit VOLVO, makes 25% better than its rating. Well that would
be 35 mpg for my Ford. The ratings of a 2010 Taurus is 28 mpg highway
and yet it is a large blocky car entirely different from the 2007
model. There is really something wrong with someone that is willing to
say that I didn't do what I did. We also had John telling us that I
was never in the Air Force. And then he claimed that Guam wasn't a war
zone despite the Air Force stating it was and despite the fact that I
was given a medal for being in an active war zone.
>
>Tommy, do you know where Guam island is? Its out there in the Pacific Ocean. It is 4200 kilometers, about 2600 miles, from Hanoi in north Vietnam or Saigon in south Vietnam. You may have been stationed at Guam island during the 1950s or 1960s, when the Vietnam War was going on. San Francisco and Los Angeles are about the same distance from Hawaii as Guam to Hanoi or Saigon. You claiming you were in an active war zone is about like the people in SF or LA saying they were in an active war zone when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>
>Tommy, you are one for the ages.

Tommy gets it wrong again.

Perhaps it is a factor of his dementia. After all he has admitted that
he was essentially insane for two years, perhaps the effects are
lingering on.

As for his Air Force career I never mentioned whether or not he was in
the Air Force I merely questioned his abilities. I believe I described
his efforts as being a "tool box carrier" for someone who had
sufficient skills to actually repair something.

As being in a combat zone... I did ask him whether Guam, thousands of
miles away from Vietnam was considered "in the War Zone" and he never
replied.

As for his medal (;-) he is talking about a "Service Ribbon"
something to pin on your shirt to show that you had served in a
certain area. At least in the jargon of those who actually served in a
combat zone a "medal" was a decoration for doing something or being
wounded - the Purple Heart is proof that you were wounded in a combat
situation - while a service ribbon simply indicates that you were
there.

Something a bit strange about his bragging about having a medal
though. The Air Force gave a Good Conduct ribbon for, essentially,
NOT, getting in trouble and Tommy doesn't mention that (:-(
--
Cheers,

On 3/28/2022 9:43 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:25:42 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> russell...@yahoo.com <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 5:39:48 PM UTC-5, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
>>>>>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
>>>>>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
>>>>>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
>>>>>>> the next full moon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
>>>>>> ratings of his car.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily (though I don’t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
>>>>> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
>>>>> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it’s 19 years old!
>>>>>
>>>>> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I’d expect 30 MPG it will dip
>>>>> below if it’s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
>>>>> calculated,
>>>>>
>>>>> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
>>>>> lower, though as it’s tank is longer than drives I’m likely to do, so
>>>>> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
>>>>
>>>> OK. Your old Volvo got up to 35 mpg occasionally. In the ideal
>>>> situation. It was rated at 28 mpg. So a 25% improvement. Was this 28
>>>> rating for overall or highway only or city? That kind of matters.
>>> Not ideal or rather it’s still mixed use, it’s simply a higher percentage
>>> of motorways for that tank.
>>>
>>> Ideal for it would be long drive cross country roads ie slower speeds where
>>> it seems to do well, but I’ve never just done a tank doing that so no idea
>>> how well it does on that.
>>>>
>>>> 2000 Ford Taurus rating is up to 20 city / 28 highway.
>>>> 2010 Ford Taurus rating is up to 18 city / 28 highway.
>>>> 2020 Ford Taurus rating is up to 22 city / 32 highway.
>>>>
>>>> Tommy boy says he got up to 45 mpg driving INTO a headwind. So Tommy boy
>>>> got 60% better mpg if he had an older 2000 or 2010 Taurus. And Tommy got
>>>> 40% better mpg if he had a 2020 Taurus.
>>>>
>>>> The numbers you gave are possibly, maybe, probably believable. The
>>>> numbers Tommy boy gave are a flat out, made up, fabricated, total LIE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
>>>>> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
>>>>> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
>>>>> a bigger engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
>>>>> improve the rated MPG.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you certainly can
>>>>>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
>>>>>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
>>>>>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
>>>>>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
>>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
>>>>>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
>>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
>>>>>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
>>>>>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
>>>>>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
>>>>>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
>>>>>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Roger Merriman
>> On my drive to Phoenix, I had to drive over the the coastal range (2,500 feet) and what used to be the Tehachapi (4,000). Perhaps the mileage on those slight grades reduced the mileage but the trip was 740 miles and mostly flat so the slight loss from the very slight grades has essentially no effect. But Frank with his spectacular mechanical engineering degree doesn't even understand that. Him and John think that the summer 10 mph northerly wind make a HUGE difference in mileage. The speed limit in Arizona is 80 mph for all vehicles And tractors can pull 3 trailers. Why is it that my mileage didn't change when I went up to 80? For that matter - limited access freeways in California have a 70 mph speed limit and my car went 25 miles of that. The Ford Taurus used fuel injection that is controlled by the auto computer and will lean out the mixture while the cylinder heat is within the proper range. That piece of shit Volvo cannot begin to match the engineering in the most common For
d.
>>
>> Frank claims his piece of shit VOLVO, makes 25% better than its rating. Well that would be 35 mpg for my Ford. The ratings of a 2010 Taurus is 28 mpg highway and yet it is a large blocky car entirely different from the 2007 model. There is really something wrong with someone that is willing to say that I didn't do what I did. We also had John telling us that I was never in the Air Force. And then he claimed that Guam wasn't a war zone despite the Air Force stating it was and despite the fact that I was given a medal for being in an active war zone.
>
> Tommy, do you know where Guam island is? Its out there in the Pacific Ocean. It is 4200 kilometers, about 2600 miles, from Hanoi in north Vietnam or Saigon in south Vietnam. You may have been stationed at Guam island during the 1950s or 1960s, when the Vietnam War was going on. San Francisco and Los Angeles are about the same distance from Hawaii as Guam to Hanoi or Saigon. You claiming you were in an active war zone is about like the people in SF or LA saying they were in an active war zone when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>
> Tommy, you are one for the ages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> These people have very serious mental problems. I really don't understand what is going on with these guys. Russell tells us about how "well educated" he is and cannot do simple arithmetic and was writing non-English English.
>
> I can do simple arithmetic. I have done it numerous times when calculating the rise in the S&P 500, Nasdaq, Dow while Bush2, Obama, Trump, and Biden were in office. My simple arithmetic clearly shows the increases and decreases each year. Yet you somehow lost all your money under Obama when everyone else made lots of money with Obama's huge stock increases. How is that possible? And I think my sentence writing is more than adequate. English speakers and writers can understand it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Flunky says that anyone would know who he is. despite his fear of being identified to the point that he uses a pseudonym. What the hell is going on with these people? They don't ride bicycles. Well maybe Frank takes the occasional ride but I would hardly rate him as a bicyclist. That is why these people cannot speak about bicycles. They hardly know what one looks like.

Regarding air campaigns, the most bombed city in Europe in
WWII was Naples. Army Air Corps and RAF flew out of bases in
Libya. Heck, even Tibbet's famous run flew out of Tinian.

I don't know if support services at Guam were ruled 'combat
duty' but it's not ridiculous. Anyone know that with
certainty? I couldn't find that but here is the most current
listing:
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/combat-zones

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 6:19:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/28/2022 9:43 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:25:42 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >>> russell...@yahoo.com <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 5:39:48 PM UTC-5, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
> >>>>>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
> >>>>>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
> >>>>>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
> >>>>>>> the next full moon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
> >>>>>> ratings of his car.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Not necessarily (though I don’t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
> >>>>> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
> >>>>> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it’s 19 years old!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I’d expect 30 MPG it will dip
> >>>>> below if it’s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
> >>>>> calculated,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
> >>>>> lower, though as it’s tank is longer than drives I’m likely to do, so
> >>>>> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
> >>>>
> >>>> OK. Your old Volvo got up to 35 mpg occasionally. In the ideal
> >>>> situation. It was rated at 28 mpg. So a 25% improvement. Was this 28
> >>>> rating for overall or highway only or city? That kind of matters.
> >>> Not ideal or rather it’s still mixed use, it’s simply a higher percentage
> >>> of motorways for that tank.
> >>>
> >>> Ideal for it would be long drive cross country roads ie slower speeds where
> >>> it seems to do well, but I’ve never just done a tank doing that so no idea
> >>> how well it does on that.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2000 Ford Taurus rating is up to 20 city / 28 highway.
> >>>> 2010 Ford Taurus rating is up to 18 city / 28 highway.
> >>>> 2020 Ford Taurus rating is up to 22 city / 32 highway.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tommy boy says he got up to 45 mpg driving INTO a headwind. So Tommy boy
> >>>> got 60% better mpg if he had an older 2000 or 2010 Taurus. And Tommy got
> >>>> 40% better mpg if he had a 2020 Taurus.
> >>>>
> >>>> The numbers you gave are possibly, maybe, probably believable. The
> >>>> numbers Tommy boy gave are a flat out, made up, fabricated, total LIE.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
> >>>>> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
> >>>>> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
> >>>>> a bigger engine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
> >>>>> improve the rated MPG.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But you certainly can
> >>>>>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
> >>>>>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
> >>>>>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
> >>>>>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
> >>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
> >>>>>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
> >>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
> >>>>>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
> >>>>>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
> >>>>>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
> >>>>>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
> >>>>>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Roger Merriman
> >> On my drive to Phoenix, I had to drive over the the coastal range (2,500 feet) and what used to be the Tehachapi (4,000). Perhaps the mileage on those slight grades reduced the mileage but the trip was 740 miles and mostly flat so the slight loss from the very slight grades has essentially no effect. But Frank with his spectacular mechanical engineering degree doesn't even understand that. Him and John think that the summer 10 mph northerly wind make a HUGE difference in mileage. The speed limit in Arizona is 80 mph for all vehicles And tractors can pull 3 trailers. Why is it that my mileage didn't change when I went up to 80? For that matter - limited access freeways in California have a 70 mph speed limit and my car went 25 miles of that. The Ford Taurus used fuel injection that is controlled by the auto computer and will lean out the mixture while the cylinder heat is within the proper range. That piece of shit Volvo cannot begin to match the engineering in the most common For
> d.
> >>
> >> Frank claims his piece of shit VOLVO, makes 25% better than its rating.. Well that would be 35 mpg for my Ford. The ratings of a 2010 Taurus is 28 mpg highway and yet it is a large blocky car entirely different from the 2007 model. There is really something wrong with someone that is willing to say that I didn't do what I did. We also had John telling us that I was never in the Air Force. And then he claimed that Guam wasn't a war zone despite the Air Force stating it was and despite the fact that I was given a medal for being in an active war zone.
> >
> > Tommy, do you know where Guam island is? Its out there in the Pacific Ocean. It is 4200 kilometers, about 2600 miles, from Hanoi in north Vietnam or Saigon in south Vietnam. You may have been stationed at Guam island during the 1950s or 1960s, when the Vietnam War was going on. San Francisco and Los Angeles are about the same distance from Hawaii as Guam to Hanoi or Saigon. You claiming you were in an active war zone is about like the people in SF or LA saying they were in an active war zone when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.
> >
> > Tommy, you are one for the ages.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> These people have very serious mental problems. I really don't understand what is going on with these guys. Russell tells us about how "well educated" he is and cannot do simple arithmetic and was writing non-English English.
> >
> > I can do simple arithmetic. I have done it numerous times when calculating the rise in the S&P 500, Nasdaq, Dow while Bush2, Obama, Trump, and Biden were in office. My simple arithmetic clearly shows the increases and decreases each year. Yet you somehow lost all your money under Obama when everyone else made lots of money with Obama's huge stock increases. How is that possible? And I think my sentence writing is more than adequate. English speakers and writers can understand it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Flunky says that anyone would know who he is. despite his fear of being identified to the point that he uses a pseudonym. What the hell is going on with these people? They don't ride bicycles. Well maybe Frank takes the occasional ride but I would hardly rate him as a bicyclist. That is why these people cannot speak about bicycles. They hardly know what one looks like..
> Regarding air campaigns, the most bombed city in Europe in
> WWII was Naples. Army Air Corps and RAF flew out of bases in
> Libya. Heck, even Tibbet's famous run flew out of Tinian.
>
> I don't know if support services at Guam were ruled 'combat
> duty' but it's not ridiculous. Anyone know that with
> certainty? I couldn't find that but here is the most current
> listing:
> https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/combat-zones
>
> Note Philippines (!).
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/28/2022 11:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:34:07 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Watching the reactions of Frank and John is comedic. Like all morons they want everyone to believe that what I actually did, according to these asses - I didn't do. Exactly what mental condition do these people have?
>
> Tom, we're not talking about what you actually did. We're talking about what you "remember" you did. As usual, those are
> very, very different. When you talk about something physically impossible - averaging 45 mph in a Ford Taurus into a
> headwind - you're "memory" is screwing up yet again.

Correction: That was supposed to be "averaging 45 miles per GALLON." And
I should have added "at freeway speeds."

Usenet being what it is, I'm surprised nobody has yet shouted "Wait a
minute, a Taurus can get 45 mpg if you drive no faster than 30 mph."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:28:30 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/28/2022 11:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:34:07 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Watching the reactions of Frank and John is comedic. Like all morons they want everyone to believe that what I actually did, according to these asses - I didn't do. Exactly what mental condition do these people have?
> >
> > Tom, we're not talking about what you actually did. We're talking about what you "remember" you did. As usual, those are
> > very, very different. When you talk about something physically impossible - averaging 45 mph in a Ford Taurus into a
> > headwind - you're "memory" is screwing up yet again.
> Correction: That was supposed to be "averaging 45 miles per GALLON." And
> I should have added "at freeway speeds."
>
> Usenet being what it is, I'm surprised nobody has yet shouted "Wait a
> minute, a Taurus can get 45 mpg if you drive no faster than 30 mph."

I find that highly unlikely. I had a 2001 taurus, the rather sleek 'flying potato' model. Even with the V6 I had one might be able to eek out 30 MPG if one nursed it on the highway at 55, and I don't exactly live in a very hilly area. The transmission shift point on the v6 versions put it into 4th gear at 45 mph on flat ground, so driving around at 30 would leave you in 3rd gear at best, not the best for fuel economy. I was commuting 30 miles each way (mostly highway) for the 6 years I had the car, part of which was during the gas price surges of 2005 when gas hit ~$3, so I was keenly aware of what the optimal speed for fuel economy was.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:28:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/28/2022 11:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:34:07 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Watching the reactions of Frank and John is comedic. Like all morons they want everyone to believe that what I actually did, according to these asses - I didn't do. Exactly what mental condition do these people have?
>>
>> Tom, we're not talking about what you actually did. We're talking about what you "remember" you did. As usual, those are
>> very, very different. When you talk about something physically impossible - averaging 45 mph in a Ford Taurus into a
>> headwind - you're "memory" is screwing up yet again.
>
>Correction: That was supposed to be "averaging 45 miles per GALLON." And
>I should have added "at freeway speeds."
>
>Usenet being what it is, I'm surprised nobody has yet shouted "Wait a
>minute, a Taurus can get 45 mpg if you drive no faster than 30 mph."

Has anyone else noticed how "erratic" Tommy's posts are?

One day he is telling us that his investments made some amazing amount
of money in one month - was it $170,000, I really don't remember. And
the day next is worrying about how he and his wife can now each get
their Social Security.

In another posts he tells us about all the specialized and complex
medical devices he has developed and in a later post complains about
the problems in fitting a bicycle seat post.

Now Tommy has recounted, a number of times about his two years of,
well to be honest, insanity, when he gave away so many of his
playthings, but now alleges that he is perfectly rational.

One can only speculate. Are there days that Tommy takes his medication
and on other days he forgets and thus we are seeing him in, a normal,
rational, condition on some days and on others his dementia takes
control and, suddenly, he is doing 45 miles per gallon, up hill, into
a head wind?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 08:19:35 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/28/2022 9:43 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:25:42 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> russell...@yahoo.com <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 5:39:48 PM UTC-5, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
>>>>>>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
>>>>>>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
>>>>>>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
>>>>>>>> the next full moon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
>>>>>>> ratings of his car.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily (though I don’t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
>>>>>> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
>>>>>> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it’s 19 years old!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I’d expect 30 MPG it will dip
>>>>>> below if it’s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
>>>>>> calculated,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
>>>>>> lower, though as it’s tank is longer than drives I’m likely to do, so
>>>>>> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. Your old Volvo got up to 35 mpg occasionally. In the ideal
>>>>> situation. It was rated at 28 mpg. So a 25% improvement. Was this 28
>>>>> rating for overall or highway only or city? That kind of matters.
>>>> Not ideal or rather it’s still mixed use, it’s simply a higher percentage
>>>> of motorways for that tank.
>>>>
>>>> Ideal for it would be long drive cross country roads ie slower speeds where
>>>> it seems to do well, but I’ve never just done a tank doing that so no idea
>>>> how well it does on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2000 Ford Taurus rating is up to 20 city / 28 highway.
>>>>> 2010 Ford Taurus rating is up to 18 city / 28 highway.
>>>>> 2020 Ford Taurus rating is up to 22 city / 32 highway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tommy boy says he got up to 45 mpg driving INTO a headwind. So Tommy boy
>>>>> got 60% better mpg if he had an older 2000 or 2010 Taurus. And Tommy got
>>>>> 40% better mpg if he had a 2020 Taurus.
>>>>>
>>>>> The numbers you gave are possibly, maybe, probably believable. The
>>>>> numbers Tommy boy gave are a flat out, made up, fabricated, total LIE.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
>>>>>> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
>>>>>> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
>>>>>> a bigger engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
>>>>>> improve the rated MPG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you certainly can
>>>>>>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
>>>>>>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
>>>>>>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
>>>>>>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
>>>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
>>>>>>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
>>>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
>>>>>>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
>>>>>>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
>>>>>>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
>>>>>>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
>>>>>>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger Merriman
>>> On my drive to Phoenix, I had to drive over the the coastal range (2,500 feet) and what used to be the Tehachapi (4,000). Perhaps the mileage on those slight grades reduced the mileage but the trip was 740 miles and mostly flat so the slight loss from the very slight grades has essentially no effect. But Frank with his spectacular mechanical engineering degree doesn't even understand that. Him and John think that the summer 10 mph northerly wind make a HUGE difference in mileage. The speed limit in Arizona is 80 mph for all vehicles And tractors can pull 3 trailers. Why is it that my mileage didn't change when I went up to 80? For that matter - limited access freeways in California have a 70 mph speed limit and my car went 25 miles of that. The Ford Taurus used fuel injection that is controlled by the auto computer and will lean out the mixture while the cylinder heat is within the proper range. That piece of shit Volvo cannot begin to match the engineering in the most common For
>d.
>>>
>>> Frank claims his piece of shit VOLVO, makes 25% better than its rating. Well that would be 35 mpg for my Ford. The ratings of a 2010 Taurus is 28 mpg highway and yet it is a large blocky car entirely different from the 2007 model. There is really something wrong with someone that is willing to say that I didn't do what I did. We also had John telling us that I was never in the Air Force. And then he claimed that Guam wasn't a war zone despite the Air Force stating it was and despite the fact that I was given a medal for being in an active war zone.
>>
>> Tommy, do you know where Guam island is? Its out there in the Pacific Ocean. It is 4200 kilometers, about 2600 miles, from Hanoi in north Vietnam or Saigon in south Vietnam. You may have been stationed at Guam island during the 1950s or 1960s, when the Vietnam War was going on. San Francisco and Los Angeles are about the same distance from Hawaii as Guam to Hanoi or Saigon. You claiming you were in an active war zone is about like the people in SF or LA saying they were in an active war zone when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>>
>> Tommy, you are one for the ages.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> These people have very serious mental problems. I really don't understand what is going on with these guys. Russell tells us about how "well educated" he is and cannot do simple arithmetic and was writing non-English English.
>>
>> I can do simple arithmetic. I have done it numerous times when calculating the rise in the S&P 500, Nasdaq, Dow while Bush2, Obama, Trump, and Biden were in office. My simple arithmetic clearly shows the increases and decreases each year. Yet you somehow lost all your money under Obama when everyone else made lots of money with Obama's huge stock increases. How is that possible? And I think my sentence writing is more than adequate. English speakers and writers can understand it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Flunky says that anyone would know who he is. despite his fear of being identified to the point that he uses a pseudonym. What the hell is going on with these people? They don't ride bicycles. Well maybe Frank takes the occasional ride but I would hardly rate him as a bicyclist. That is why these people cannot speak about bicycles. They hardly know what one looks like.
>
>Regarding air campaigns, the most bombed city in Europe in
>WWII was Naples. Army Air Corps and RAF flew out of bases in
>Libya. Heck, even Tibbet's famous run flew out of Tinian.
>
>I don't know if support services at Guam were ruled 'combat
>duty' but it's not ridiculous. Anyone know that with
>certainty? I couldn't find that but here is the most current
>listing:
>https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/combat-zones
>
>Note Philippines (!).

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 6:19:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/28/2022 9:43 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:25:42 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> >>> russell...@yahoo.com <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 5:39:48 PM UTC-5, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> >>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
>> >>>>>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
>> >>>>>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
>> >>>>>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
>> >>>>>>> the next full moon.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
>> >>>>>> ratings of his car.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Not necessarily (though I don’t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
>> >>>>> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
>> >>>>> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it’s 19 years old!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I’d expect 30 MPG it will dip
>> >>>>> below if it’s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
>> >>>>> calculated,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
>> >>>>> lower, though as it’s tank is longer than drives I’m likely to do, so
>> >>>>> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> OK. Your old Volvo got up to 35 mpg occasionally. In the ideal
>> >>>> situation. It was rated at 28 mpg. So a 25% improvement. Was this 28
>> >>>> rating for overall or highway only or city? That kind of matters.
>> >>> Not ideal or rather it’s still mixed use, it’s simply a higher percentage
>> >>> of motorways for that tank.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ideal for it would be long drive cross country roads ie slower speeds where
>> >>> it seems to do well, but I’ve never just done a tank doing that so no idea
>> >>> how well it does on that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2000 Ford Taurus rating is up to 20 city / 28 highway.
>> >>>> 2010 Ford Taurus rating is up to 18 city / 28 highway.
>> >>>> 2020 Ford Taurus rating is up to 22 city / 32 highway.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Tommy boy says he got up to 45 mpg driving INTO a headwind. So Tommy boy
>> >>>> got 60% better mpg if he had an older 2000 or 2010 Taurus. And Tommy got
>> >>>> 40% better mpg if he had a 2020 Taurus.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The numbers you gave are possibly, maybe, probably believable. The
>> >>>> numbers Tommy boy gave are a flat out, made up, fabricated, total LIE.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
>> >>>>> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
>> >>>>> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
>> >>>>> a bigger engine.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
>> >>>>> improve the rated MPG.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But you certainly can
>> >>>>>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
>> >>>>>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
>> >>>>>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
>> >>>>>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
>> >>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
>> >>>>>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
>> >>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
>> >>>>>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
>> >>>>>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
>> >>>>>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
>> >>>>>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
>> >>>>>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Roger Merriman
>> >> On my drive to Phoenix, I had to drive over the the coastal range (2,500 feet) and what used to be the Tehachapi (4,000). Perhaps the mileage on those slight grades reduced the mileage but the trip was 740 miles and mostly flat so the slight loss from the very slight grades has essentially no effect. But Frank with his spectacular mechanical engineering degree doesn't even understand that. Him and John think that the summer 10 mph northerly wind make a HUGE difference in mileage. The speed limit in Arizona is 80 mph for all vehicles And tractors can pull 3 trailers. Why is it that my mileage didn't change when I went up to 80? For that matter - limited access freeways in California have a 70 mph speed limit and my car went 25 miles of that. The Ford Taurus used fuel injection that is controlled by the auto computer and will lean out the mixture while the cylinder heat is within the proper range. That piece of shit Volvo cannot begin to match the engineering in the most common
>For
>> d.
>> >>
>> >> Frank claims his piece of shit VOLVO, makes 25% better than its rating. Well that would be 35 mpg for my Ford. The ratings of a 2010 Taurus is 28 mpg highway and yet it is a large blocky car entirely different from the 2007 model. There is really something wrong with someone that is willing to say that I didn't do what I did. We also had John telling us that I was never in the Air Force. And then he claimed that Guam wasn't a war zone despite the Air Force stating it was and despite the fact that I was given a medal for being in an active war zone.
>> >
>> > Tommy, do you know where Guam island is? Its out there in the Pacific Ocean. It is 4200 kilometers, about 2600 miles, from Hanoi in north Vietnam or Saigon in south Vietnam. You may have been stationed at Guam island during the 1950s or 1960s, when the Vietnam War was going on. San Francisco and Los Angeles are about the same distance from Hawaii as Guam to Hanoi or Saigon. You claiming you were in an active war zone is about like the people in SF or LA saying they were in an active war zone when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>> >
>> > Tommy, you are one for the ages.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> These people have very serious mental problems. I really don't understand what is going on with these guys. Russell tells us about how "well educated" he is and cannot do simple arithmetic and was writing non-English English.
>> >
>> > I can do simple arithmetic. I have done it numerous times when calculating the rise in the S&P 500, Nasdaq, Dow while Bush2, Obama, Trump, and Biden were in office. My simple arithmetic clearly shows the increases and decreases each year. Yet you somehow lost all your money under Obama when everyone else made lots of money with Obama's huge stock increases. How is that possible? And I think my sentence writing is more than adequate. English speakers and writers can understand it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Flunky says that anyone would know who he is. despite his fear of being identified to the point that he uses a pseudonym. What the hell is going on with these people? They don't ride bicycles. Well maybe Frank takes the occasional ride but I would hardly rate him as a bicyclist. That is why these people cannot speak about bicycles. They hardly know what one looks like.
>> Regarding air campaigns, the most bombed city in Europe in
>> WWII was Naples. Army Air Corps and RAF flew out of bases in
>> Libya. Heck, even Tibbet's famous run flew out of Tinian.
>>
>> I don't know if support services at Guam were ruled 'combat
>> duty' but it's not ridiculous. Anyone know that with
>> certainty? I couldn't find that but here is the most current
>> listing:
>> https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/combat-zones
>>
>> Note Philippines (!).
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
>This is not to mention that I flew 3 missions over the DMZ which had the heaviest missile and flack emplacements until Nixon began bombing Hanoi. Watching missiles and flak explode around you is harmless according to people like Russell. Just old fashion fireworks.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:28:07 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:16:16 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 6:19:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 3/28/2022 9:43 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:25:42 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> >> >>> russell...@yahoo.com <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 5:39:48 PM UTC-5, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> >> >>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> On 3/25/2022 5:22 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:36:42 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> On my drive to Phoenix from here in the bay area I averaged 35 mpg and
>> >> >>>>>>>> on the way back, despite driving into a headwind I got up to 45 mpg.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Huh. Only Tommy boy can outsmart the laws of physics and mechanical
>> >> >>>>>>> engineering to get increased gas mileage going into a headwind. You
>> >> >>>>>>> should sell your genius abilities Tommy. You'd be a trillionaire before
>> >> >>>>>>> the next full moon.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Not to mention the disconnect between Tom's claims and the mileage
>> >> >>>>>> ratings of his car.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Not necessarily (though I don’t know what he claims!) but certainly you can
>> >> >>>>> do better than the claims with driving style, my old Volvo is rated for
>> >> >>>>> 28MPG though the grades for that will have changed as it’s 19 years old!
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> But even so my driving is mixed, and for that I’d expect 30 MPG it will dip
>> >> >>>>> below if it’s a lot of city traffic, I log my miles so each fill up is
>> >> >>>>> calculated,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> But on a long motorway drive will do 35MPG maybe touch more if speeds are
>> >> >>>>> lower, though as it’s tank is longer than drives I’m likely to do, so
>> >> >>>>> rarely is it one type of driving essentially.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> OK. Your old Volvo got up to 35 mpg occasionally. In the ideal
>> >> >>>> situation. It was rated at 28 mpg. So a 25% improvement. Was this 28
>> >> >>>> rating for overall or highway only or city? That kind of matters.
>> >> >>> Not ideal or rather it’s still mixed use, it’s simply a higher percentage
>> >> >>> of motorways for that tank.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Ideal for it would be long drive cross country roads ie slower speeds where
>> >> >>> it seems to do well, but I’ve never just done a tank doing that so no idea
>> >> >>> how well it does on that.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> 2000 Ford Taurus rating is up to 20 city / 28 highway.
>> >> >>>> 2010 Ford Taurus rating is up to 18 city / 28 highway.
>> >> >>>> 2020 Ford Taurus rating is up to 22 city / 32 highway.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Tommy boy says he got up to 45 mpg driving INTO a headwind. So Tommy boy
>> >> >>>> got 60% better mpg if he had an older 2000 or 2010 Taurus. And Tommy got
>> >> >>>> 40% better mpg if he had a 2020 Taurus.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The numbers you gave are possibly, maybe, probably believable. The
>> >> >>>> numbers Tommy boy gave are a flat out, made up, fabricated, total LIE.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> This said the Taurus is highly likely to be all things equal heavier on
>> >> >>>>> fuel as its (slightly) longer heavier car and fair bit wider, this is born
>> >> >>>>> out by fairly similar performance specs ie 0-60/top speed Eve. With mostly
>> >> >>>>> a bigger engine.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> But back to point you certainly can with smoother and slower driving
>> >> >>>>> improve the rated MPG.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> But you certainly can
>> >> >>>>>> I'm assuming he's talking about his older Ford Taurus, although I don't
>> >> >>>>>> remember what model year he owns. It hardly matters, because the EPA
>> >> >>>>>> ratings top out at around 30 mpg highway
>> >> >>>>>> https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-taurus-gas-mileage/
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> and the real world results, by surveys, are about 20 mpg overall.
>> >> >>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Nobody but Tom gets 45 mpg in a Taurus except while using a Jute-like
>> >> >>>>>> trick* of coasting downhill in neutral.
>> >> >>>>>> https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/taurus/2019
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> (*Jute entered this discussion group claiming that his sit-up-and-beg
>> >> >>>>>> tank of a bike was very aerodynamic because it hit something like 60 mph
>> >> >>>>>> on a downhill. He later claimed he actually meant it occurred when he
>> >> >>>>>> was pulled up to speed with a rope, then coasted behind a hired farmer's
>> >> >>>>>> truck that had a huge plywood wind shield bolted across its tail.
>> >> >>>>>> Creative writing at Jute's piss-poor best!)
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Roger Merriman
>> >> >> On my drive to Phoenix, I had to drive over the the coastal range (2,500 feet) and what used to be the Tehachapi (4,000). Perhaps the mileage on those slight grades reduced the mileage but the trip was 740 miles and mostly flat so the slight loss from the very slight grades has essentially no effect. But Frank with his spectacular mechanical engineering degree doesn't even understand that. Him and John think that the summer 10 mph northerly wind make a HUGE difference in mileage. The speed limit in Arizona is 80 mph for all vehicles And tractors can pull 3 trailers. Why is it that my mileage didn't change when I went up to 80? For that matter - limited access freeways in California have a 70 mph speed limit and my car went 25 miles of that. The Ford Taurus used fuel injection that is controlled by the auto computer and will lean out the mixture while the cylinder heat is within the proper range. That piece of shit Volvo cannot begin to match the engineering in the most
common
>> >For
>> >> d.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Frank claims his piece of shit VOLVO, makes 25% better than its rating. Well that would be 35 mpg for my Ford. The ratings of a 2010 Taurus is 28 mpg highway and yet it is a large blocky car entirely different from the 2007 model. There is really something wrong with someone that is willing to say that I didn't do what I did. We also had John telling us that I was never in the Air Force. And then he claimed that Guam wasn't a war zone despite the Air Force stating it was and despite the fact that I was given a medal for being in an active war zone.
>> >> >
>> >> > Tommy, do you know where Guam island is? Its out there in the Pacific Ocean. It is 4200 kilometers, about 2600 miles, from Hanoi in north Vietnam or Saigon in south Vietnam. You may have been stationed at Guam island during the 1950s or 1960s, when the Vietnam War was going on. San Francisco and Los Angeles are about the same distance from Hawaii as Guam to Hanoi or Saigon. You claiming you were in an active war zone is about like the people in SF or LA saying they were in an active war zone when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>> >> >
>> >> > Tommy, you are one for the ages.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> These people have very serious mental problems. I really don't understand what is going on with these guys. Russell tells us about how "well educated" he is and cannot do simple arithmetic and was writing non-English English.
>> >> >
>> >> > I can do simple arithmetic. I have done it numerous times when calculating the rise in the S&P 500, Nasdaq, Dow while Bush2, Obama, Trump, and Biden were in office. My simple arithmetic clearly shows the increases and decreases each year. Yet you somehow lost all your money under Obama when everyone else made lots of money with Obama's huge stock increases. How is that possible? And I think my sentence writing is more than adequate. English speakers and writers can understand it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Flunky says that anyone would know who he is. despite his fear of being identified to the point that he uses a pseudonym. What the hell is going on with these people? They don't ride bicycles. Well maybe Frank takes the occasional ride but I would hardly rate him as a bicyclist. That is why these people cannot speak about bicycles. They hardly know what one looks like.
>> >> Regarding air campaigns, the most bombed city in Europe in
>> >> WWII was Naples. Army Air Corps and RAF flew out of bases in
>> >> Libya. Heck, even Tibbet's famous run flew out of Tinian.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know if support services at Guam were ruled 'combat
>> >> duty' but it's not ridiculous. Anyone know that with
>> >> certainty? I couldn't find that but here is the most current
>> >> listing:
>> >> https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/combat-zones
>> >>
>> >> Note Philippines (!).
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew Muzi
>> >> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> >> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> >
>> >This is not to mention that I flew 3 missions over the DMZ which had the heaviest missile and flack emplacements until Nixon began bombing Hanoi. Watching missiles and flak explode around you is harmless according to people like Russell. Just old fashion fireworks.
>> Yes, of course....
>>
>> Tommy tell us why a B-52, would carry an unskilled A2c, essentially a
>> military nobody, on a combat mission.
>>
>> Take your medicine, your dementia is taking over.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>John, didn't every bombing mission carry a low level toolbox carrier like Tommy along? You know, if the jet engine on the B52 quit working, they could turn to their mechanic, Tommy, and say fix it.
>
>Or, didn't the Air Force operate sight seeing excursions for the motor pool guys? Didn't the Air Force take a group of janitors like Tommy up in a plane and fly them over the war zone and have them look out the windows? And bring along some MREs and a few beers so they could pretend they were in the action.