Prev: Italian Tuneups
Next: 20mph when lights are flashing
From: Steve Firth on 11 Jul 2010 08:48 ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:34:11 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) > wrote: > > >> Obviously a huge yatch with one pasenger is worse than a packed out > >> steerage class plane. > > > ><cough>obblers. > > > >In all the time that I owned my yacht it didn't even use one tank of > >fuel, you see yachts have these things called "sails". Of course a yatch > >may use much more fuel than a yacht. > > I would have thought That would be a start, but I fear it's too late for you as your mindless trolling proved. > anybody reading for sense would realize I'm referring to a gin palace type > yatch Since you're talking some sort of chav-speak it's difficult for anyone to tell with certainty what you intend. f you mean a motor yacht then it would be sensible to say so. If you knew what you were talking about you would realise that there are yachts (with sails) and stinkpots driven by chavs. Mind you, someone who thinks a clapped out Freelander is a Chelsea Tractor isn't someone in contact with reality anyway. Perhaps you could try writing sense instead of expecting people to imbue your ramblings with something they do not, at present, contain?
From: Nick Finnigan on 11 Jul 2010 10:56 Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:27:01 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote: > >>> A lot is going to depend on how you do the comparison, I will be surprised >>> if a ship makes less CO2 or uses less fuel, to move a kilo of payload. >> Ships will generally be better for low value non-perishable freight. > > In the future that equation may change with emissions being costed more > significantly. > CO2wise ships are better full stop. Planes win only on speed. Carbon, > noise, comfort and most everything they come last by a mile. You are guaranteed a seat on a plane, but not on a ship (or train). Noise is just as appalling on a ship, the view is more limited. > the figures I have looked at, if you allow the 3x or 4x multiplier for > altitude, then ships are better for passengers too. What figures for passengers have you found ? I would like to find > per vehicle ferry figures, as per passenger make little sense, as its the > vehicle load that determines a ferries carbon footprint. A few extra car > passenger - pasengers are marginal in effect. Cars and even HGVs are marginal in effect on ferries - they'll travel a yard an hour faster, but otherwise be exactly the same.
From: Steve Firth on 11 Jul 2010 11:42 Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:48:42 +0100, Steve Firth wrote: > > >> I would have thought > > > > That would be a start, but I fear it's too late for you as your mindless > > trolling proved. > > oh dear Trying to forget your past are you "Mike"?
From: Steve Firth on 11 Jul 2010 11:42 Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:32:30 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote: > > > Put some sails up and that fuel bill could be much reduced. > > seems set to happen from what I read. ITYM from what your carer reads to you.
From: Steve Firth on 11 Jul 2010 12:02
Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > > I would like to find > > per vehicle ferry figures, as per passenger make little sense, as its the > > vehicle load that determines a ferries carbon footprint. A few extra car > > passenger - pasengers are marginal in effect. > > Cars and even HGVs are marginal in effect on ferries - they'll travel a > yard an hour faster, but otherwise be exactly the same. I hope, although I'm not sure from your syntax that what you are saying is that a laoded ferry has a slightly higher speed due to the longer LWL than a lightly loaded ferry. Although it is of course usual to take on ballast to maintain trim and LWL on most vessels of significant size. |