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: BrianW on 21 May 2010 16:05 On May 21, 7:59�am, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > BrianW <brianwhiteh...(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. I suppose it would give Gollum yet one more thing to whine about.
From: Nick Finnigan on 21 May 2010 16:32 Phil W Lee wrote: > The same fuel, that will fly the plane the same distance, will occupy > more volume if you uplift it in Abu Dhabi instead of Anchorage. > Of even greater interest to an airline, if you fill by volume in > Anchorage (or anywhere else cold), you will have excess fuel at your > destination, which means you will have wasted fuel by transporting > fuel that you didn't need. > > You can use this to your advantage by avoiding buying fuel when the > temperature is high. Although Summer petrol is denser than Winter petrol.
From: GT on 23 May 2010 04:46 "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message news:ht6d4d$bh7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > GT wrote: >> >> OK, lets make it simple for the people that clearly didn't study and >> maths. Given 1 gallon of fuel, a car that can propel itself for 50 miles >> is more efficient than a car that can propel itself only 40 miles. Simple >> as that. > > No. > >> The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more efficiently. That clear? > > Clear, but wrong. I said that a higher MPG equates to better efficiency. So the car doing 50MPG is more efficient than the car doing 18MPG. You simply say that is wrong, so you are saying that a car that can drive 18 miles on a gallon of fuel is more efficient than the car that can drive 50 miles on the same amount of fuel. This clearly demonstrates that you don't have any mathematical understanding. You offer no explanation for your sweeping statement and you have made yourself look silly!
From: Nick Finnigan on 23 May 2010 06:05 GT wrote: > "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ht6d4d$bh7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> GT wrote: >>> 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. >> No. >> >>> The car with the higher MPG, burns fuel more efficiently. That clear? >> Clear, but wrong. > > I said that a higher MPG equates to better efficiency. So the car doing > 50MPG is more efficient than the car doing 18MPG. You simply say that is > wrong, so you are saying that a car that can drive 18 miles on a gallon of > fuel is more efficient than the car that can drive 50 miles on the same > amount of fuel. No, I am saying there is not enough information to decide, because the amount of fuel in one gallon varies. This clearly demonstrates that you don't have any mathematical understanding. You offer no explanation for your sweeping statement and you have made yourself look silly!
From: boltar2003 on 24 May 2010 04:41
On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:08:42 +0100 Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >> go by miles per unit weight rather than volume diesel cars would still be >> more efficient than petrol ones. > > "For engines with the same aspiration and power, CO2 emissions using >different fuels are quite similar." Prove me wrong. Well they're not are they because CO2 is specifically measured as grams per kilometer so fuel weight or volume doesn't even come into it. Its prestty damn easy to find the respective figures for equivalent petrol and diesel vehicles and to see that diesel wins hands down the vast majority of the time so I'm not sure where that spurious quote came from but its quite clearly bollocks. Prove you wrong? Go look at this site then: http://www.carpages.co.uk/co2/ B2003 |