You very clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Go read about torque multiplication in the converter and how engine load affects turbocharger spooling. That or shut up. Either or.
That's a nice idea but there is no way in hell it would be possible (mechanical fallback mode). Ignoring of course that modern (as in newer than 1900) petrol engines have always had electronic ignition systems anyway.
If we put modern engine and transmissions in a compact car from the 70s or 80s, it'd likely get 50-60 mpg easily.
I drive a 1988 Mazda RX7 with a 2002 Corvette V8 in it. Even with 2x the output the Corvette originally had (so >600 HP at the engine) the car STILL got ~34 mpg, combined (and ~40 mpg highway). That RX7 weighs ~3000 lbs, with a driver. So yes, you are absolutely correct.
Not necessarily true. My "fun car" in it's previous configuration made ~34 mpg with >600 horsepower. Power and efficiency are, in fact, very closely related. It's weight and design that get in the way.
Since you wanted someone to disagree, here you go.
As a general rule, you are correct, a manual transmission will allow for more accurate application of power, and a torque converter does "cost" more horsepower than a clutch (excluding a locked up converter, but an automatic is still generally less efficient). However, considering a large portion of the discussion has included turbocharged cars, things get much different at that point. An automatic allows you to increase load on the engine without having to bring the RPMs down, out of the powerband. This allows a turbocharger to spool more quickly, bringing you into the most effective part of your powerband with the turbo already spooled up, bringing you quicker acceleration. This is why turbocharged drag cars use automatics, as well as why turbocharged manual cars use "anti-lag" which helps work around the fact that you cannot load the engine in this way with a manual transmission.
FWIW, I'm not speaking from my rectum here. I own a turbocharged drag car that previously ran a manual transmission and now has an automatic, for this exact reason. Again, as a general rule, you are correct, but as a blanket statement, there is a rather large range of vehicles for which the opposite is true.
People are rude online because they feel that can get away with it. It's that simple. It's the same reason someone will happily threaten you on a forum, then completely avoid you in person. It's no different than the "behind your back" talking that is done offline.
Internet conversation also generally lacks emphasis and that leads to misunderstandings. Misunderstandings coupled with relative anonymity leads to people acting far more dramatically than they might otherwise behave.
Fair enough. That was a 200 level course at Purdue University for what it's worth. I would concur that later undergrad studies definitely limited easy cheating such as that.
That may be easier in a MOOC scenario, but it's pretty rampant at "real" colleges as well. A group of friends and I worked together to create spreadsheets that could answer our physics problems, each one took one one problem and then we traded equations when we were done (the homework used different numbers, but required the same equations). You would then only have to do 1 of 15 problems and the other 14 were provided for you. We were able to use scientific calculators on exams as well, so you just had to know which of your auto-equations to fill in the blanks on.
Oddly though, in retrospect, many of the programming tricks I learned in college to cheat have been much more useful to me in the work place then the endless equations that were fed to me in engineering school.
Article says he was a swim coach. A likely reason would be that he coached them. As far as why they have phones, well that's a whole different discussion/argument.
Interesting, but still a relatively small sample size. I watched TV and played video games regularly. My favorite shows as a kid were 3-2-1 Contact, Mr. Wizard, Nova, and, of all things, This Old House. Of course there were several cartoon series I enjoyed as well, mostly Batman and X-Men.
By most standards I'm above average to well above average in each of your categories that your example children excelled in. Perhaps the families you associate with are generally of above average intelligence (their parenting choices would generally back this theory) and that's why their children have turned out well. I am not endorsing using the television as a babysitter, simply offering some counterpoint to your example above.
The women who buy very large SUVs "because they have children and they need the space" - they have only 2. My parents got 3 kids around in a Chevy Vega. But these days people need gigantic light trucks for their TWO kids. Gee, I wonder what gave them that idea?
I am having this exact battle with my wife currently. She has a 4 door Subaru Impreza; not a large car by any means, but not particularly tiny either. We are going to replace it this spring with (assuming I win the battle, which I am likely to) a Subaru Legacy. This is a BIG full size car (not big by US standards, but as a Japanese marque goes, it's huge). She firmly believes she needs a small SUV/crossover (aka fancy looking minivan) because our son's stuff takes too much space, and if/when we have a second child, how could you EVER move two kids and their goods in a CAR?
Forget the fact that I grew up with my family having a Buick Skylark (late 80's style, not a big car, and not very useful space) and a pickup truck (2 door, bench seat) with 2 kids. We didn't have any trouble. I think it's mostly that she has never needed to pay attention to making intelligent use of space, and packing only what is needed, and of course, everyone else has an SUV. Good for them, I'll take 30+ MPG, thank you kindly.
The only way you can ever possibly level the playing field is to take the money from the rich, and split it out until everyone has the exact same everything, period. Even then, the popularity contest that is life would have to be regulated as well. Money buys influence, period. Should it be this way? No. Has it always been this way? Yes.
The problem with the very nice theory of equality is that the implementation ALWAYS fails.
I find it humorous the dramatic responses people in this thread seem to make to reforming education. Culling the poor teachers, removing administrative bloat and ending all the "zero tolerance OMGWTFBBQ" bullshit would make massive strides toward resolving the failures of public education. I went to a public school (admittedly in an area flush with money) and received an education at least on par with the private schools in the region. Would I have had a more difficult time in the inner city? Absolutely. Would putting the equivalent of a high end private school in the inner city help? I'm sure it would help some, but without a change in the CULTURE of this country, we can never actually solve these problems. Resolving problems ingrained in a culture is probably the most difficult challenge there is; perhaps that's why everyone chooses to ignore it?
I've actually attempted to run the most recent RC of Windows 8. I put it on my laptop, which is normally a Windows 7 system; I have too many issues with the "Clickpad" on it under various Linux flavors, as well as a need for Photoshop. It seems to run very well, and "feels" a bit snappier than 7 which already runs well on the system, a Sandy Bridge i5 w/ 6 Gb of RAM, Nvidia Optimus graphics and a 750GB 7200 RPM spinny disk.
For bog standard use, which is most of what I use the laptop for, aka web browsing, couple terminal windows and some graphic and photo editing, it works fine and is not much different than Windows 7. That was the case, until I installed a couple utilities than tried to use them a few days later. It took me a few minutes to realize I had to type search for them because they don't show up in any of the "panels" in metro. Not to mention previewing pictures wants to launch a huge full screen app that you have to close out of. Oh, and that app doesn't scroll through the pictures nicely either, it seemed like a weak implementation of iPhoto. I spent ~4 weeks running 8 on the laptop before I couldn't tolerate the productivity hit any longer, and went back to Windows 7.
It really does seem like they have made some good improvements to it's bones, it's just the horrid interface change (for anything non-touch) that seems to do nothing but slow me down. As I noted, for the basic Facebook/Web/email user, sure, it's probably fine, but even in that case, it's not BETTER than 7, it's just... different. Definitely not what I would consider a "work of art", though I suppose it's better than some things I've seen in museums.
For a point of reference on my opinions above, I try to be an equal opportunity OS guy; I have owned MacBooks (and find OSX to be a nice OS, I have few complaints with it), have run Linux desktops quite a bit (mostly Fedora and older Ubuntu versions), and generally run Windows on my "daily driver" computers. I actually HAVE used most popular distros and Windows/Mac release in the past 10 years.
Make cooling less effective, which reduces engine efficiency.
Had to grab this one. That's not true. Engine efficiency generally goes up with heat. Obviously to a point, but the vast majority of vehicles on the road have substantially more airflow than is really needed for peak efficiency. Other losses can be resolved with slightly more effort in tuning of the water flow speed (electric water pumps would be a good start) and more efficient radiator core designs. Both of these exist in motorsport today, though both cost more than currently available solutions.
Not to mention incredibly unsafe in crash situations, ill handling and difficult to bring up to highway speed.
Something that I see being missed by most here is what the article is about. AVERAGE fuel mileage. That means average across the board. Now I realize it's trendy to say that trucks and larger vehicles should never be sold, yada yada, but the fact is that a large amount are actually used/needed for industry. My parents both drove full size trucks and used them daily for work, which required a truck (or a full size van I suppose). Why does this matter? Because a full size truck with sufficient power (let's say a turbocharged V6) is still going to be
Yes, small cars will outsell trucks by a large margin, so the above example is hyperbole, but you still have to remember that the this means that the numbers required for the efficient vehicles will have to be substantially higher than 54.5 mpg, and sales volume of them will have to be dramatically higher than less efficient vehicles as well.
Now, the realistic solution to this is electrics/hybrids. Pure electrics and hybrids skirt around some of the EPA ratings due to how they are measured. I'd expect this is why the manufacturers back this initiative.
", we are going broke in part because of those programs."
FALSE. we are going broke because of run away military expenditures, useless wars, and not taxing appropriately.
Also,l congress sticks there fingers into the pie to divert funds.
FALSE. We ARE broke, because of run away military expenditures, useless wars, not taxing appropriately, AND the healthcare system, poorly run government social programs, bloat and a society with a huge entitlement complex.
We have problems on all sides of the table, and they ALL need addressed. Unfortunately I don't see that happening until things get dramatically worse than they currently are.
Slashdot Mirror
You very clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Go read about torque multiplication in the converter and how engine load affects turbocharger spooling. That or shut up. Either or.
Generally, that is correct. Lockup usually only occurs under constant state (cruise) and not during acceleration.
Superchargers require energy from the crank to turn. Turbochargers use waste energy (exhaust) to turn. Much more efficient.
That's a nice idea but there is no way in hell it would be possible (mechanical fallback mode). Ignoring of course that modern (as in newer than 1900) petrol engines have always had electronic ignition systems anyway.
If we put modern engine and transmissions in a compact car from the 70s or 80s, it'd likely get 50-60 mpg easily.
I drive a 1988 Mazda RX7 with a 2002 Corvette V8 in it. Even with 2x the output the Corvette originally had (so >600 HP at the engine) the car STILL got ~34 mpg, combined (and ~40 mpg highway). That RX7 weighs ~3000 lbs, with a driver. So yes, you are absolutely correct.
Not necessarily true. My "fun car" in it's previous configuration made ~34 mpg with >600 horsepower. Power and efficiency are, in fact, very closely related. It's weight and design that get in the way.
The main difference is cultural expectations about car size.
No, the main difference is legislation: http://jalopnik.com/cafe/
Cultural expectations are a result, not a cause. Purchase of the government by lobbyists built the laws, society simply conforms.
Since you wanted someone to disagree, here you go.
As a general rule, you are correct, a manual transmission will allow for more accurate application of power, and a torque converter does "cost" more horsepower than a clutch (excluding a locked up converter, but an automatic is still generally less efficient). However, considering a large portion of the discussion has included turbocharged cars, things get much different at that point. An automatic allows you to increase load on the engine without having to bring the RPMs down, out of the powerband. This allows a turbocharger to spool more quickly, bringing you into the most effective part of your powerband with the turbo already spooled up, bringing you quicker acceleration. This is why turbocharged drag cars use automatics, as well as why turbocharged manual cars use "anti-lag" which helps work around the fact that you cannot load the engine in this way with a manual transmission.
FWIW, I'm not speaking from my rectum here. I own a turbocharged drag car that previously ran a manual transmission and now has an automatic, for this exact reason. Again, as a general rule, you are correct, but as a blanket statement, there is a rather large range of vehicles for which the opposite is true.
People are rude online because they feel that can get away with it. It's that simple. It's the same reason someone will happily threaten you on a forum, then completely avoid you in person. It's no different than the "behind your back" talking that is done offline.
Internet conversation also generally lacks emphasis and that leads to misunderstandings. Misunderstandings coupled with relative anonymity leads to people acting far more dramatically than they might otherwise behave.
Fair enough. That was a 200 level course at Purdue University for what it's worth. I would concur that later undergrad studies definitely limited easy cheating such as that.
That may be easier in a MOOC scenario, but it's pretty rampant at "real" colleges as well. A group of friends and I worked together to create spreadsheets that could answer our physics problems, each one took one one problem and then we traded equations when we were done (the homework used different numbers, but required the same equations). You would then only have to do 1 of 15 problems and the other 14 were provided for you. We were able to use scientific calculators on exams as well, so you just had to know which of your auto-equations to fill in the blanks on.
Oddly though, in retrospect, many of the programming tricks I learned in college to cheat have been much more useful to me in the work place then the endless equations that were fed to me in engineering school.
Article says he was a swim coach. A likely reason would be that he coached them. As far as why they have phones, well that's a whole different discussion/argument.
Very valid point. I've known plenty of rich fat people and I know a ton of skinny people that are poor as shit.
Interesting, but still a relatively small sample size. I watched TV and played video games regularly. My favorite shows as a kid were 3-2-1 Contact, Mr. Wizard, Nova, and, of all things, This Old House. Of course there were several cartoon series I enjoyed as well, mostly Batman and X-Men.
By most standards I'm above average to well above average in each of your categories that your example children excelled in. Perhaps the families you associate with are generally of above average intelligence (their parenting choices would generally back this theory) and that's why their children have turned out well. I am not endorsing using the television as a babysitter, simply offering some counterpoint to your example above.
The women who buy very large SUVs "because they have children and they need the space" - they have only 2. My parents got 3 kids around in a Chevy Vega. But these days people need gigantic light trucks for their TWO kids. Gee, I wonder what gave them that idea?
I am having this exact battle with my wife currently. She has a 4 door Subaru Impreza; not a large car by any means, but not particularly tiny either. We are going to replace it this spring with (assuming I win the battle, which I am likely to) a Subaru Legacy. This is a BIG full size car (not big by US standards, but as a Japanese marque goes, it's huge). She firmly believes she needs a small SUV/crossover (aka fancy looking minivan) because our son's stuff takes too much space, and if/when we have a second child, how could you EVER move two kids and their goods in a CAR?
Forget the fact that I grew up with my family having a Buick Skylark (late 80's style, not a big car, and not very useful space) and a pickup truck (2 door, bench seat) with 2 kids. We didn't have any trouble. I think it's mostly that she has never needed to pay attention to making intelligent use of space, and packing only what is needed, and of course, everyone else has an SUV. Good for them, I'll take 30+ MPG, thank you kindly.
Rabbit attacks? Clearly you have never seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Oh, I don't know. Huge generators on the roof during a massive earthquake and tsunami might not end well either. Gravity and all that.
You know, really, the commie's love nuclear power. You'd think the tree huggers would too.
The only way you can ever possibly level the playing field is to take the money from the rich, and split it out until everyone has the exact same everything, period. Even then, the popularity contest that is life would have to be regulated as well. Money buys influence, period. Should it be this way? No. Has it always been this way? Yes.
The problem with the very nice theory of equality is that the implementation ALWAYS fails.
I find it humorous the dramatic responses people in this thread seem to make to reforming education. Culling the poor teachers, removing administrative bloat and ending all the "zero tolerance OMGWTFBBQ" bullshit would make massive strides toward resolving the failures of public education. I went to a public school (admittedly in an area flush with money) and received an education at least on par with the private schools in the region. Would I have had a more difficult time in the inner city? Absolutely. Would putting the equivalent of a high end private school in the inner city help? I'm sure it would help some, but without a change in the CULTURE of this country, we can never actually solve these problems. Resolving problems ingrained in a culture is probably the most difficult challenge there is; perhaps that's why everyone chooses to ignore it?
I've actually attempted to run the most recent RC of Windows 8. I put it on my laptop, which is normally a Windows 7 system; I have too many issues with the "Clickpad" on it under various Linux flavors, as well as a need for Photoshop. It seems to run very well, and "feels" a bit snappier than 7 which already runs well on the system, a Sandy Bridge i5 w/ 6 Gb of RAM, Nvidia Optimus graphics and a 750GB 7200 RPM spinny disk.
For bog standard use, which is most of what I use the laptop for, aka web browsing, couple terminal windows and some graphic and photo editing, it works fine and is not much different than Windows 7. That was the case, until I installed a couple utilities than tried to use them a few days later. It took me a few minutes to realize I had to type search for them because they don't show up in any of the "panels" in metro. Not to mention previewing pictures wants to launch a huge full screen app that you have to close out of. Oh, and that app doesn't scroll through the pictures nicely either, it seemed like a weak implementation of iPhoto. I spent ~4 weeks running 8 on the laptop before I couldn't tolerate the productivity hit any longer, and went back to Windows 7.
It really does seem like they have made some good improvements to it's bones, it's just the horrid interface change (for anything non-touch) that seems to do nothing but slow me down. As I noted, for the basic Facebook/Web/email user, sure, it's probably fine, but even in that case, it's not BETTER than 7, it's just... different. Definitely not what I would consider a "work of art", though I suppose it's better than some things I've seen in museums.
For a point of reference on my opinions above, I try to be an equal opportunity OS guy; I have owned MacBooks (and find OSX to be a nice OS, I have few complaints with it), have run Linux desktops quite a bit (mostly Fedora and older Ubuntu versions), and generally run Windows on my "daily driver" computers. I actually HAVE used most popular distros and Windows/Mac release in the past 10 years.
NHTSA - 3 out of 5 stars rating. I don't really see the need to explain further.
I may be off base here (not much caffeine today) but I seem to recall the bible telling people TO rotate crops, not admonishing for doing so.
With you on the rest though.
Make cooling less effective, which reduces engine efficiency.
Had to grab this one. That's not true. Engine efficiency generally goes up with heat. Obviously to a point, but the vast majority of vehicles on the road have substantially more airflow than is really needed for peak efficiency. Other losses can be resolved with slightly more effort in tuning of the water flow speed (electric water pumps would be a good start) and more efficient radiator core designs. Both of these exist in motorsport today, though both cost more than currently available solutions.
Not to mention incredibly unsafe in crash situations, ill handling and difficult to bring up to highway speed.
Something that I see being missed by most here is what the article is about. AVERAGE fuel mileage. That means average across the board. Now I realize it's trendy to say that trucks and larger vehicles should never be sold, yada yada, but the fact is that a large amount are actually used/needed for industry. My parents both drove full size trucks and used them daily for work, which required a truck (or a full size van I suppose). Why does this matter? Because a full size truck with sufficient power (let's say a turbocharged V6) is still going to be
Yes, small cars will outsell trucks by a large margin, so the above example is hyperbole, but you still have to remember that the this means that the numbers required for the efficient vehicles will have to be substantially higher than 54.5 mpg, and sales volume of them will have to be dramatically higher than less efficient vehicles as well.
Now, the realistic solution to this is electrics/hybrids. Pure electrics and hybrids skirt around some of the EPA ratings due to how they are measured. I'd expect this is why the manufacturers back this initiative.
", we are going broke in part because of those programs." FALSE. we are going broke because of run away military expenditures, useless wars, and not taxing appropriately. Also,l congress sticks there fingers into the pie to divert funds.
FALSE. We ARE broke, because of run away military expenditures, useless wars, not taxing appropriately, AND the healthcare system, poorly run government social programs, bloat and a society with a huge entitlement complex.
We have problems on all sides of the table, and they ALL need addressed. Unfortunately I don't see that happening until things get dramatically worse than they currently are.