It's amazing the difference that the final drive ratio can make. I changed my '87 BMW 325e (121hp w/ 4750rpm redline) from a 2.73 rear end to a 4.10 after I swapped in a 325i engine (168hp w/ 6900 rpm redline), and my highway mileage dropped through the floor (28mpg > 20mpg) due to the higher revs. Interestingly my city mileage is a little better, I suspect because the lower gearing encourages me to use the higher gears more when I'm only travelling at moderate speeds.
If he can run pump gas in his engine with a 9:1 cr and 1 bar of boost, he could certainly run the same engine without the boost and 10.5:1 pistons on pump gas. In fact, from what I calculate here, a switch from 9:1 to 10.5:1 in his engine would necessitate about a 3.3 octane increase. Incedentally, the same calculator indicates he should probably be running 104 octane avgas right now.
I am supreme dictator of all humans, but I have already chosen to allow them to do as they wish. Unfortunatley some of them have become deranged and started abusing each other's freedom. Not only that but they have constructed elaborate structures of rationalizations, institutes of indoctrination, and organized thugs to perpetuate their crimes against each other.
I only hope I can guide my subjects to realize the error of their ways so they can happily leave each other the hell alone.
And how long do those engines last? What kind of gas do they run? How much (little) has to go wrong before they grenade? How high could the compression ratio be pushed if they weren't turbocharged? Could Honda build a few million just like them and give them a decent warranty without going broke?
It's easy to say a tuner can build a car that pushes all the limits when they can spend weeks tuning it, feed it a couple gallons of toluene when they gas it up, put in expensive forged pistons and crank along with titanium rods, and expect to rebuild the engine in under 30K miles.
Would you care to provide an example of a car that is offered with NA or forced induction engines of the same displacement that get almost identical gas mileage?
The only one I've seen is the subaru imprezza and the numbers I looked at gave about a 10% loss in fuel mileage for the turbo 2.5l vs the NA 2.5l. I would hesitate to call 10% insignificant.
Not to mention the fact that most turbocharged engines require premium gas to get the best mileage and performance.
Don't get me wrong though. I love turbos! My father's '93 RX-7 is running a single turbo with a huge intercooler and @14psi it's putting about 400RWHP on the ground. It's the fastest thing on 4 wheels that I've ever experienced and it's great.
From your description it sounds like the engine in your mustang would have been better off being turbocharged from the get-go. If your gas mileage actually improved and you can run 1 bar of boost without issues, then your engine was running too low a compression ratio to get very good combustion in naturally aspirated form.
This isn't uncommon in two-valve-per-cylinder pushrod engines because the shape of the combustion chambers and the location of the spark plug results in slow, inefficient combustion. This of course results in lower chamber pressures. The low chamber pressure leaves a lot of headroom (no pun intended) for modifications that increase that pressure.
You probably could have made a few changes like switching to 10.5:1 pistons and realized similar horsepower and higher mileage gains.
Don't forget that most turbocharged engines will give up some fuel efficiency as compared to a naturally aspirated engine of the same displacement even when operating under light loads. This is because in order to handle (without blowing head gaskets or detonation) the increased charge density provided by forced induction, they must use a lower static compression ratio. Lower compression ratio generally equals less efficient combustion.
You're only counting income tax. Start counting state and local sales tax, gas tax, property tax, inheritance tax, vehicle registration, etc and see what it adds up to. Then think about how much the cost of everything that you buy with the remainder of what the government leaves you is inflated by taxes.
And what's this about having you're property taken under the threat of violence not being robbery as long as the perpetrator gives you something? Is it ok to start mugging people as long as I give them back a cracker jack prize? How big a cracker jack prize does it have to be to make it ok?
The things that bring people joy and happiness (j&h) are as numerous as the people that experince them. So how would you propose maximising j&h in the world?
How about ensuring that people have the freedom to pursue whatever brings them j&h, limited only by what is detrimental to the freedom of others?
If an individual feels that for the sake of their personal j&h they must surrender their own freedom and submit to the will of another they have the freedom to do so.
I would argue that to forcibly remove an individuals freedom to pursue their own j&h for the supposed benefit of anyone elses j&h is degrading, a denial of the individuals ownership of their own life, and morally reprehensible.
You could argue that you can't completely trust any computer system unless you personally audited every portion of the system. You would have to check the processor core, microcode, firmware, OS, applications, etc. You would have to hand compile your own compiler and then use it to compile everything else. You could never connect it to any network. You could never leave anyone else alone with it. It would need to be faraday shielded at all times.
They have people listening to songs and classifying them by about 400 different attributes. They analyze the commonalities in those attributes between the songs you like and the ones you don't to provide more of what you like.
What it says about what I'm listening to right now: "Based on what you've told us so far, we're playing this track because it features a subtle use of vocal harmony, mild rythmic syncopation, varying tempo and time signatures, demanding instrumental part writing and a clear focus on recording studio production."
But a 170lb passenger doesn't increase the operating cost of the car by anywhere near 5% either. Most of the significant costs of operating the car are not that elastic. Things like the initial cost of the car, insurance, and maintenance are virtually unaffected by the presence of a passenger.
You are correct that the energy requirement to acheive orbit scales pretty linearly with the mass of the vehicle, but fuel isn't necessarily a significant portion of the cost of a launch. This is why the $/lb ratio isn't particularly meaningful - it doesn't scale for a given vehicle (it doesn't cost an extra $10,000 for a shuttle launch if each astronaut has a quarter-pounder with cheese before lift-off) and the $/lb ratio of one vehicle is meaningless applied to a different vehicle.
Commonly quoted statistics with regard to price-per-pound are nearly meaningless. They are almost always based on simply dividing the cost of a launch by the mass of the payload.
Does the cost of operating your car double when you add a passenger?
1. I never said they would pass it, I wondered how long it will be before they would propose it. Mind-bogglingly stupid legislation is proposed every freaking day the legislature is in session. I shouldn't have to point out that sometimes this stuff gets passed anyway. Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.
2. It isn't really that hard to check the data's integrity. Just let each data block be processed by multiple clients and check/filter the anomalies.
While it's true that the "no worse tyranny" quote is a bit strong on the hyperbole (why does everybody nitpick what constitutes 'the worst tyranny' rather than addressing its point? I'm gonna hafta get a new one.), I think that what you take for petty technicalities are simply an expression of most libertarians uncompromised belief in their principles. What good are principles if they are easily compromised?
I think you'll also find that libertarians are very well focused on solutions to the problems of "murder, mayhem, and general starvation and deprivation." Most libertarians see these issues as symptoms of the larger problem of misguided gorvernment mismanagement.
Just what is it that you oppose about libertarians? You don't think that people should be free to control their own lives? You believe that it wrong to oppose the initiation of force against anyone?
While the hyperbole may be little strong in that quote, I have had it in my.sig much longer than this thread has been up.
You might also consider that it refers to more than just onerous license fees. It could refer to paying for anything from unjust foreign wars, to the national endowment for the arts, to social security. It could even refer to paying for the privilege of being beaten, tortured, imprisoned and killed.
Bonding is probably a good idea for this kind of business. I would encourage anyone I knew that was looking to consign something to ebay to seek a reputable and bonded consigner. Caveat emptor.
I will not agree that the government has any business or hope of improving the situation by requiring licenses and bonds for such a simple business. These requirements don't prevent fraud. Punishing fraudulet behavior prevents fraud.
Nope, not mine, it's slightly paraphrased (to fit within the 120 char sig limit) from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by R.A. Heinlein.
The original quote is: "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
Slashdot Mirror
It's amazing the difference that the final drive ratio can make. I changed my '87 BMW 325e (121hp w/ 4750rpm redline) from a 2.73 rear end to a 4.10 after I swapped in a 325i engine (168hp w/ 6900 rpm redline), and my highway mileage dropped through the floor (28mpg > 20mpg) due to the higher revs. Interestingly my city mileage is a little better, I suspect because the lower gearing encourages me to use the higher gears more when I'm only travelling at moderate speeds.
If he can run pump gas in his engine with a 9:1 cr and 1 bar of boost, he could certainly run the same engine without the boost and 10.5:1 pistons on pump gas. In fact, from what I calculate here, a switch from 9:1 to 10.5:1 in his engine would necessitate about a 3.3 octane increase.
Incedentally, the same calculator indicates he should probably be running 104 octane avgas right now.
I am supreme dictator of all humans, but I have already chosen to allow them to do as they wish. Unfortunatley some of them have become deranged and started abusing each other's freedom. Not only that but they have constructed elaborate structures of rationalizations, institutes of indoctrination, and organized thugs to perpetuate their crimes against each other.
I only hope I can guide my subjects to realize the error of their ways so they can happily leave each other the hell alone.
And how long do those engines last? What kind of gas do they run? How much (little) has to go wrong before they grenade? How high could the compression ratio be pushed if they weren't turbocharged? Could Honda build a few million just like them and give them a decent warranty without going broke?
It's easy to say a tuner can build a car that pushes all the limits when they can spend weeks tuning it, feed it a couple gallons of toluene when they gas it up, put in expensive forged pistons and crank along with titanium rods, and expect to rebuild the engine in under 30K miles.
Would you care to provide an example of a car that is offered with NA or forced induction engines of the same displacement that get almost identical gas mileage?
The only one I've seen is the subaru imprezza and the numbers I looked at gave about a 10% loss in fuel mileage for the turbo 2.5l vs the NA 2.5l. I would hesitate to call 10% insignificant.
Not to mention the fact that most turbocharged engines require premium gas to get the best mileage and performance.
Don't get me wrong though. I love turbos! My father's '93 RX-7 is running a single turbo with a huge intercooler and @14psi it's putting about 400RWHP on the ground. It's the fastest thing on 4 wheels that I've ever experienced and it's great.
From your description it sounds like the engine in your mustang would have been better off being turbocharged from the get-go. If your gas mileage actually improved and you can run 1 bar of boost without issues, then your engine was running too low a compression ratio to get very good combustion in naturally aspirated form.
This isn't uncommon in two-valve-per-cylinder pushrod engines because the shape of the combustion chambers and the location of the spark plug results in slow, inefficient combustion. This of course results in lower chamber pressures. The low chamber pressure leaves a lot of headroom (no pun intended) for modifications that increase that pressure.
You probably could have made a few changes like switching to 10.5:1 pistons and realized similar horsepower and higher mileage gains.
Don't forget that most turbocharged engines will give up some fuel efficiency as compared to a naturally aspirated engine of the same displacement even when operating under light loads. This is because in order to handle (without blowing head gaskets or detonation) the increased charge density provided by forced induction, they must use a lower static compression ratio. Lower compression ratio generally equals less efficient combustion.
This is why Saab developed this.
You're only counting income tax. Start counting state and local sales tax, gas tax, property tax, inheritance tax, vehicle registration, etc and see what it adds up to. Then think about how much the cost of everything that you buy with the remainder of what the government leaves you is inflated by taxes.
And what's this about having you're property taken under the threat of violence not being robbery as long as the perpetrator gives you something? Is it ok to start mugging people as long as I give them back a cracker jack prize? How big a cracker jack prize does it have to be to make it ok?
The things that bring people joy and happiness (j&h) are as numerous as the people that experince them. So how would you propose maximising j&h in the world?
How about ensuring that people have the freedom to pursue whatever brings them j&h, limited only by what is detrimental to the freedom of others?
If an individual feels that for the sake of their personal j&h they must surrender their own freedom and submit to the will of another they have the freedom to do so.
I would argue that to forcibly remove an individuals freedom to pursue their own j&h for the supposed benefit of anyone elses j&h is degrading, a denial of the individuals ownership of their own life, and morally reprehensible.
You could argue that you can't completely trust any computer system unless you personally audited every portion of the system. You would have to check the processor core, microcode, firmware, OS, applications, etc. You would have to hand compile your own compiler and then use it to compile everything else. You could never connect it to any network. You could never leave anyone else alone with it. It would need to be faraday shielded at all times.
How paranoid is paranoid enough?
Just click the blue "create a new station" button in the upper left corner.
They have people listening to songs and classifying them by about 400 different attributes. They analyze the commonalities in those attributes between the songs you like and the ones you don't to provide more of what you like.
What it says about what I'm listening to right now:
"Based on what you've told us so far, we're playing this track because it features a subtle use of vocal harmony, mild rythmic syncopation, varying tempo and time signatures, demanding instrumental part writing and a clear focus on recording studio production."
It works pretty well for me.
But a 170lb passenger doesn't increase the operating cost of the car by anywhere near 5% either. Most of the significant costs of operating the car are not that elastic. Things like the initial cost of the car, insurance, and maintenance are virtually unaffected by the presence of a passenger.
You are correct that the energy requirement to acheive orbit scales pretty linearly with the mass of the vehicle, but fuel isn't necessarily a significant portion of the cost of a launch. This is why the $/lb ratio isn't particularly meaningful - it doesn't scale for a given vehicle (it doesn't cost an extra $10,000 for a shuttle launch if each astronaut has a quarter-pounder with cheese before lift-off) and the $/lb ratio of one vehicle is meaningless applied to a different vehicle.
Commonly quoted statistics with regard to price-per-pound are nearly meaningless. They are almost always based on simply dividing the cost of a launch by the mass of the payload.
Does the cost of operating your car double when you add a passenger?
If it actually came to pass, the best you could hope for would be to get to write-off part of your electric bill on your income taxes.
1. I never said they would pass it, I wondered how long it will be before they would propose it. Mind-bogglingly stupid legislation is proposed every freaking day the legislature is in session. I shouldn't have to point out that sometimes this stuff gets passed anyway. Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.
2. It isn't really that hard to check the data's integrity. Just let each data block be processed by multiple clients and check/filter the anomalies.
for some politician to propose commandeering the unused CPU cycles of the nations PCs, ala distributed.net but mandatory.
While it's true that the "no worse tyranny" quote is a bit strong on the hyperbole (why does everybody nitpick what constitutes 'the worst tyranny' rather than addressing its point? I'm gonna hafta get a new one.), I think that what you take for petty technicalities are simply an expression of most libertarians uncompromised belief in their principles. What good are principles if they are easily compromised?
I think you'll also find that libertarians are very well focused on solutions to the problems of "murder, mayhem, and general starvation and deprivation." Most libertarians see these issues as symptoms of the larger problem of misguided gorvernment mismanagement.
Just what is it that you oppose about libertarians? You don't think that people should be free to control their own lives? You believe that it wrong to oppose the initiation of force against anyone?
I have never seen a site with so many bad usernames from bugmenot. They must be automatically removing them.
Yeah but laptops have been made out of magnesium for nearly fifteen years now. Hasn't really been a problem.
While the hyperbole may be little strong in that quote, I have had it in my .sig much longer than this thread has been up.
You might also consider that it refers to more than just onerous license fees. It could refer to paying for anything from unjust foreign wars, to the national endowment for the arts, to social security. It could even refer to paying for the privilege of being beaten, tortured, imprisoned and killed.
(Someone is bound to take that^ as flamebait.)
Bonding is probably a good idea for this kind of business. I would encourage anyone I knew that was looking to consign something to ebay to seek a reputable and bonded consigner. Caveat emptor.
I will not agree that the government has any business or hope of improving the situation by requiring licenses and bonds for such a simple business. These requirements don't prevent fraud. Punishing fraudulet behavior prevents fraud.
Nope, not mine, it's slightly paraphrased (to fit within the 120 char sig limit) from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by R.A. Heinlein.
The original quote is: "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want
merely because you think it would be good for him."