I like it!

Al C-F said:

you know? said:

I was going to start on about
unnecessary flim-flammery like electric starters and wind-down windows
next

Please do. I like minimalism.

And hair shirts.

You'll be needing those Toyotas where you have to sit naked in the snow and
beat yourself with birch twigs everytime you dream about it ;-)

Tony

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gawnsoft said:

Yes, diesels are naturals for continuously-variable transmissions,
where the engine sits in its power-band all the time (in fact

My parents had a DAF33, and my in-laws a succession of DAF66/Volvo66.
Lovely things.

One of the great missed opportunities for the F1/road crossover was the
ban on the Williams CVT that Newey and Head did in about 1992 --- Hill
tested it, which makes it 91 or 92. It was massively faster than the
rest of the cars at the test on its first run --- and that _before_ the
obvious increase in engine power that would come from the powerband
being traded for power --- and was promptly banned. The rules now
mandate a minimum of two and maximum of seven gears --- that avoids the
old ``is a CVT one gear or an infinity of gears'' dispute. Obviously
the myth of the cars that never were helps its reputation --- see also
the six-wheel Williams [*] --- but the idea is clearly sound.

Had Williams been allowed to race it, the credibility of CVT would have
hugely increased, as it would have blown the rest of the field into the
weeds. The old ``real men drive manuals, it's the _control_ you
know'' nonsense would have been killed, Van Dorne would have been able
to productionise a credible high-performance CVT, cars would genuinely
now be different. Precious little of F1 technology will rub off into
road cars --- do you need 18000rpm? Carbon/carbon brakes? --- but CVT
would have been a real winner.

Great shame.

ian

[*] 2 at the front, 4 at the back, like the still-born March. Now holds
the outright record at Goodwood Hillclimb, driven by Palmer. The famous
Tyrell P34 is now cleaning up in Historic F1 and BOSS, engineered by the
designer Derek Gardner, because it has decent front tyres available from
Avon. What killed it in 1977 was the lack of fronts.

Tony Raven said:

You'll be needing those Toyotas where you have to sit naked in the snow and
beat yourself with birch twigs everytime you dream about it ;-)

Wrong newsgroup, surely.
--

Cheers,

Al

Gawnsoft said:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:45:19 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Just zis Guy said:

No ottermatic, tho. Can't think why so few diesels are offered with
an ottermatic option.

Because if you're having a diesel for the emmissions, the auto kills
it.

According tiot the official figures, autos normally kill about 10% of
mileage, and diesel brings it up 20-30%.

What? An auto kills something one in every 10 miles? I didn't realise
cars were *that* dangerous!

--
Trevor Barton

Ian G Batten said:

My parents had a DAF33, and my in-laws a succession of DAF66/Volvo66.
Lovely things.

Mine had a 33 as well. Pretty neat on the whole, though it did have the
turning circle of a jumbo jet which didn't seem quite right in a car
that size...

Quoted message said:

Had Williams been allowed to race it, the credibility of CVT would have
hugely increased, as it would have blown the rest of the field into the
weeds.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Great shame.

Not entirely unlike the situation with the UCI and anything resembling
development of the bicycle :-(

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Ian G Batten said:

My parents had a DAF33, and my in-laws a succession of DAF66/Volvo66.
Lovely things.

I drove a Volvo 343 thus equipped. *Nasty*. In contrast, the MG ZS my
parent had was really quite nice.

[F1 CVT stull]

My understanding was that it was about 2 seconds a lap quicker round
Silverstone than the same car equipped with a "box of old mangle gears", but
it was outlawed because Bernie didn't like the noise it made...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

Trevor Barton said:

Oh no, I'd not change my Galaxy for (almost) anything. [...]

I prefer something which goes round corners, thanks ;-)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Trevor Barton said:

Gawnsoft said:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:45:19 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email hidden]> wrote:

>No ottermatic, tho. Can't think why so few diesels are offered with
>an ottermatic option.

Because if you're having a diesel for the emmissions, the auto kills
it.

According tiot the official figures, autos normally kill about 10% of
mileage, and diesel brings it up 20-30%.

What? An auto kills something one in every 10 miles? I didn't realise
cars were *that* dangerous!

Not washed a windscreen in a while then? Plethora of bugs ;-)

--

Velvet

you know? said:

Trevor Barton said:

Oh no, I'd not change my Galaxy for (almost) anything. [...]

I prefer something which goes round corners, thanks ;-)

Oh, but it does, and it does it with three degrees of freedom, too,
roll, pitch and yaw. Try that with your standard, hurrumph, "car".

It does take a little getting used to, but once you're no longer fazed
by the roll it's just as nimble as your average large car. I don't
notice it any more. It's fantastic for picking up girls, too. Pity
they're all my kids' mates and under 13 ;-P

--
Trevor Barton

you know? said:

Quoted message said:

Most ordinary cars can stop 50%+ faster than big 4x4s.

Not sure if it's quite 50% - the V70 stops from 60mph 16% shorter than
a Disco, but will take nearly 30% greater lateral force in skidpan
tests and can do a slalom test about 60% faster.

Hi Guy

Call me an old DM-reading reactionary if you wish, but I've always
(OK, mostly) believed that driving/cycling/whatever and being able to
stop within one's sight is a pretty reasonably idea.

I hope you know what I mean by the above; it has the clarity of mud.

James

"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ian G Batten said:

My parents had a DAF33, and my in-laws a succession of DAF66/Volvo66.
Lovely things.

I drove a Volvo 343 thus equipped. *Nasty*. In contrast, the MG ZS my
parent had was really quite nice.

[F1 CVT stull]

My understanding was that it was about 2 seconds a lap quicker round
Silverstone than the same car equipped with a "box of old mangle gears",

but

Quoted message said:

it was outlawed because Bernie didn't like the noise it made...

[Getting waaaaaaaaaay off topic]

I don't think it was only Bernie not liking the noise it made - but I
believe that was the main reason.

As a motorsports enthusiast, I agree 100% :-p

Additionally, there is the additional point that motor racing is a test of
driving skill - and I for one consider part of that skill to be changing
gears manually. But then I'm a luddite when it comes to the technology vs
driver debate in motorsport :-)

Another technology that was banned in F1 would would have made a positive
impact on the public highway is the electro-hybrid car. McLaren had started
development on such a car - the point being that energy wasted when the
engine isn't needed to power the car (i.e. when braking), the energy
outputted by the engine could be stored electrically. This energy could then
be used to provide extra power by means of an electric motor.

Sadly the FIA or Charlie Whiting ruled that the electric motor constituted a
secondary power source, thus the idea was ruled illegal.

A shame, because this technology had (and still has) great potential to
reduce emissions and fuel consumption (especially in urban areas). Indeed
the technology is slowly filting down to the general public. But use of this
technology in F1 would have made it "cool"[1], which would have accelerated
its development and take-up.

[1]Apparantly this is a good thing, though I am unsure myself ;-)

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

you know? said:

True enough. There are not enough high quality east-to-west routes
(car or train) in the UK.

This may be a deliberate measure. Given the antipathy between the two
sides of the pennines, it saves on a civil war.
--

ROFL :-)

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:31:34 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

All I'm saying is having a rational well planned motorway network has

other

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

benefits and is overall beneficial IMHO. It's just we don't have a well
planned motorway network in this country, and we do suffer for it (and

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just in terms of congestion).

The M25 was, in these terms, a tolerably good idea. A big f---off
bypass round the UK's capital of congestion. The only problem is, it
was instantly subverted by lots of people who decided that it meant
they could move out to the 'burbs and still get to the office by
car...

That is of course entirely true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not for 8 lane superhighways - but I find it silly that
Newcastle-upon-Tyne isn't connected to the motorway network (although
thankfully the govt. is doing something about this example)

True enough. There are not enough high quality east-to-west routes
(car or train) in the UK.

I have to agree.

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:31:34 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

All I'm saying is having a rational well planned motorway network has

other

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

benefits and is overall beneficial IMHO. It's just we don't have a well
planned motorway network in this country, and we do suffer for it (and

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just in terms of congestion).

The M25 was, in these terms, a tolerably good idea. A big f---off
bypass round the UK's capital of congestion. The only problem is, it
was instantly subverted by lots of people who decided that it meant
they could move out to the 'burbs and still get to the office by
car...

That is of course entirely true.

That is because of the excessively large number of junctions on it. If it
had intersected only at major motorways (M1, M3, M4 etc), then it would only
have acted as a london bypass and not attracted additional housing and
industrial/business estates and local commute traffic (where 'local' is a
relative term!)

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

Had Williams been allowed to race it, the credibility of CVT would have
hugely increased, as it would have blown the rest of the field into the
weeds.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Great shame.

Not entirely unlike the situation with the UCI and anything resembling
development of the bicycle :-(

Exactly. There needs to be a top-line competition with pretty well
unlimited (safety aside) rules, in all vehicle sports, so that the
boundaries can be pushed. F1 has backed itself into a corner, as there
is no benefit to cars in general to ultra high rev short-stroke engines,
especially when the rules ban non-circular pistons, more than five
valves and several other interesting technologies.

The situation in cycling is even more ludicrous. Not only do the UCI
forbid anything that wouldn't have been recognised as mainstream on the
first Tour de France, they also forbid modern materials which drop the
weight below 11lbs or whatever the limit is (``Legalise my
Cannondale!''😉, shapes of handlebars that Jacques and Eddie didn't use
and a bunch of other stuff.

ian

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nathaniel Porter said:

Additionally, there is the additional point that motor racing is a test of
driving skill - and I for one consider part of that skill to be changing
gears manually. But then I'm a luddite when it comes to the technology vs
driver debate in motorsport :-)

Do you believe they should return to the days of the manual
advance/[censored] lever?

Quoted message said:

Another technology that was banned in F1 would would have made a positive
impact on the public highway is the electro-hybrid car. McLaren had started

Exactly. F1 is becoming an increasing irrelevence to car engineering,
whereas you can trace things done by Cooper, Chapman, Costain and
Duckworth into modern production car practice.

ian

James Hodson said:

Call me an old DM-reading reactionary if you wish, but I've always
(OK, mostly) believed that driving/cycling/whatever and being able to
stop within one's sight is a pretty reasonably idea.

<pedant> Being able to stop within *half* one's sight is also pretty
handy, just in case you meet someone coming the other way... ;-)

R.

Ian G Batten said:

Exactly. There needs to be a top-line competition with pretty well
unlimited (safety aside) rules, in all vehicle sports, so that the
boundaries can be pushed. F1 has backed itself into a corner, as there
is no benefit to cars in general to ultra high rev short-stroke engines,
especially when the rules ban non-circular pistons, more than five
valves and several other interesting technologies.

The situation in cycling is even more ludicrous. Not only do the UCI
forbid anything that wouldn't have been recognised as mainstream on the
first Tour de France, they also forbid modern materials which drop the
weight below 11lbs or whatever the limit is (``Legalise my
Cannondale!''😉, shapes of handlebars that Jacques and Eddie didn't use
and a bunch of other stuff.

ian

Its not about the bike.

Theres nothing stopping the HPV association putting on and
organising its own races and events which they do. They are
just not that popular, oh yeah the Illuminati at the UCI
will close it down in shadow ops, like they did with MTB's.

Ian G Batten said:

The situation in cycling is even more ludicrous. Not only do the UCI
forbid anything that wouldn't have been recognised as mainstream on
the first Tour de France, they also forbid modern materials which
drop the weight below 11lbs or whatever the limit is (``Legalise my
Cannondale!''😉, shapes of handlebars that Jacques and Eddie didn't use
and a bunch of other stuff.

Just as well the safety bicycle was established before UCI came along or
Lance would be riding an Ordinary.

Luddites.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Tumbleweed said:

Quoted message said:

That is because of the excessively large number of junctions on it. If it
had intersected only at major motorways (M1, M3, M4 etc), then it would only
have acted as a london bypass

Do you not feel that this goes for all UK motorways? In France,
autoroutes don't go particularly near towns - you have to drive out to
them and their junctions are infrequent. Consequently, it appears
that they are used for the major hauls acroos the country, not for
skipping from town to town.

From where I live, there are three junctions on the M27 that are
within 4 or 5 miles. Many of my neighbours use the motorway depending
on which bit of Southampton they want to park in, and it's only 7
miles away.
--

Cheers,

Al