Restaurant damaged by car.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Do escape lanes work?
Next: Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
From: Stephen Bagwell on 20 May 2010 17:00 On 18 May, 09:00, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Stephen Bagwell <stephenb196...(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > > > How many less tonnes of carbon dioxide have been produced because of > > Americans driving hybrid Toyota and Lexus cars? > > Compared to what? > > (Total non-sequitur ignored for the moment) Compared to a Cadillac Escalade
From: Adrian on 21 May 2010 02:58 "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> mpg is a measure of efficiency - it indicate how much fuel the vehicle >>> needs to move a certain distance. The vehicle that uses less fuel for >>> the same distance is more efficient. >> If I had a lightweight motorbike which did 50mpg and a 3.5t van which >> did 40mpg laden, which would you say was more efficient? > We were comparing petrol cars versus diesel cars. Comparing motorbikes > with vans is just as silly as it is irrelevant to the original *car* mpg > discussion. >> If I came up with a technology that allowed me to dilute petrol 50%, >> making 2 gallons of fuel from one of neat petrol - and applied it to a >> car that normally did 40mpg on neat fuel, but now does 30mpg on dilute >> fuel, which would you say was more efficient? > Neither - we were talking about the efficiency of 1 car versus another. > If you were to devise such a system, then it could (presumably) be > applied to all cars, therefore making the same *efficiency* saving > across the board. > > You haven't tho have you? Can I be your friend if you do? I think those goalposts just broke the land-speed record, so between us we can rule the world...
From: Adrian on 21 May 2010 02:59 BrianW <brianwhitehead(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> How about we do a real-life comparison test? Would that satisfy you? >> >> I'll drive a car into a solid wall, whilst Duhg rides a bike into a >> similar building. >> >> 'course, for a fair test, it'd have to be from the same speed - as high >> as possible, ideally. Duhg - what speed can you manage on your bike? We >> can find a really steep hill if it's a help. >> >> Hell, I'll even source a car, if somebody promises to video the result >> and put it on YouTube. > That would be a completely pointless experiment, as the results are > entirely predictable. I know. But it'd still be worth doing. > Gollum's thick skull would cause more damage to the wall than any car > could. There's only one way to be sure.
From: boltar2003 on 21 May 2010 04:43 On 20 May 2010 16:33:35 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >saying: > >>>>>Bloater seems to think this is somehow relevant to lean burn petrols. > >>>> Because a lean burn engine basically gets rid of throttling losses so >>>> is more efficient at lower rpm when the throttle would otherwise be >>>> partially closed. > >>>ITYM "diesel". Lean-burn petrol is still throttled in the usual way - > >> No they're not. Thats the whole point you numpty. > >So - do tell us - how DOES it work? It reduces throttling loses by regulating engine speed by regulating the amount of fuel on a more or less constant throttle. Thats where the very high air to fuel ratios from. Did you think the combustion in the chamber was somehow magically different to a normal petrol engine that meant it could generate the same power from less fuel? You get max power you when the fuel is completely burnt and that already happens in a standard petrol engine anyway. B2003
From: GT on 21 May 2010 04:47
"Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message news:ht459d$ddf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > GT wrote: >> "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:ht3r1e$p0f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> GT wrote: >>>> Comparing CO2 output from 2 different hydrocarbons doesn't compare >>>> efficiencies, it simply indicates how much carbon there was in the CH >>>> compound. That is a measure of emmisions and a clever way of taxing the >>>> motor vehicle. To compare efficiency between 2 hydrocarbon burning >>>> devices, we have to examine how much hydrocarbon source is used to >>>> generate a fixed amount of power. >>> 'how much' is measured by mass, or energy. >>> >>> MPG is such a measurement. >>> >>> No, it isn't. >> >> We were trying to measure efficiency, not count 'how much' emmissions are >> produced. mpg is a measure of efficiency > > No, it isn't. OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and maths. Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50 miles is more efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40 miles. Simple as that. The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more efficiently. That clear? |