The extreme drop off in efficiency causes the non-performance cars to rapidly drop below the performance cars in MPG
That's the bit I think is nonsense. And again, Top Gear might demonstrate, but what they don't do is actually perform the test for real. They are TV programme makers - they write a script, then they film it. The outcome is already decided.
Her car has real time MPG reporting. The drop off in efficiency between 55mph and 65mph was like a cliff. The drop off in efficiency for performance cars appears, in my experience at least, to be less extreme.
That I'm sure is true. But it's not the same thing as you said Top Gear had demonstrated.
A skilled driver in a well maintained vehicle can travel faster than an unskilled driver in a vehicle with worn suspension and bald tires.
The problem is that 90% of drivers think they are have driving skills that are above average. And they are similarly bad at judging the true state of their car.
This is why we have limits and don't allow people to decide their own maximum speed. People are not nearly as good a judge of their abilities or the risks as they think they are. And that includes me and you.
A statement about as moronic and useless as saying "guns don't kill, the bullets do".
Neither the people who came up with the slogan "Speed Kills", nor the people that use it, think that driving at 90mph causes spontaneous death. They are all very aware that it's the sudden deceleration when you hit something whilst travelling at that speed that tends to produce death.
On your majority claim, please show an official efficiency curve for any car that does more mph at 90 than 55. My bet is you can't. Because it's nonsense.
Top gear did a good episode demonstrating fuel efficiency where they put something like a Ford Focus (some small "economical" hatchback) up against a BMW M3 on their track.
You seem to have forgotten that Top Gear is an entertainment show, not a fact based programme. Their races, their stunts and their reviews are all stories that are scripted and then filmed. Any resemblance to reality is only ever coincidental.
Top Gear viewers want to believe that they can be more economical in a BMW than a Ford Focus is driven with skill, so that's what they show them. It might be true, it might not be, there's no way of knowing, unless someone genuinely does the test. Top Gear certainly won't have done.
In 1977, I rented a Camaro to drive home from Virginia Beach. On the drive home, I drove the speed limit. I had to stop for fuel before I arrived home. I drove around after I got home, then fueled up for the drive back to Va. Beach. On the drive back to the naval base, I drove like a madman. I DID NOT have to stop for fuel - I returned the car with the needle just about at the "E", but it still had some gas.
Well that experience surely proves the manufacturers own figures wrong.
Driving 75 mph instead of 50 mph reduces my drive time by about 33%.
Very unlikely. That would apply if you had a clear trafficless road all the way, with no junctions to slow or stop for. Virtually no real journeys are like that.
In reality you are talking about your highway cruising speed, and and depending on your journey, a fair proportion of the time, if not the distance, will be on local roads.
The problem in the GP's scenario is the unpredictability introduced by one car's sudden change from "steady state" to "who knows what will happen next!?!"
A human driver typically makes a single prediction of what a car is going to do. A computer can constantly make many predictions of what may happen.
A computer can calculate the extremes of the envelope of what can happen, and allow for them, and can react in a small fraction of the time of a human.
Human accidents are often be caused by other drivers behaving unpredictably. Computer driven cars - not necessarily so.
But you can make a mobile phone in many different forms. The one that Android phones tend to use is copied from iPhone, but there are plenty of other options. We've seen plenty of options over the years. Indeed as I said, Android's original reference design was a Blackberry copy, which is quite different from an iPhone copy. And there are plenty of other design options that haven't been made into devices yet.
There is virtually never only one option. No options of jobs, that happens. Several options of jobs, that happens too. But precisely one option of job: that's an unlikely proposition. It happens, but not often enough to explain the number of people that do cold-calling jobs.
Making the job even shittier reduces the number of people that are willing to do it. And that's a good thing. I have no sympathy for those that chose to do the job.
I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for people who take jobs that largely consist of annoying people. And that includes all cold-calling. We should do nothing to make their job easier and everything to make their job harder.
The idea to filter the light is a good one, thanks. However...
The idea that taking the exact same sort of stuff we already have and slapping a solar panel on the roof where there is otherwise just metal is "more ridiculous than most" concept car ideas, is absurd.
But that clearly was not the idea that I called more ridiculous than most. It was the magnifying car port that I called ridiculous, for 2 reasons, only one of which you partially addressed.
They are saying that the lens provides for 10 times as much solar power. Well roughly speaking that means about 10 times as much heat concentrated on the car too. PV cells are not efficient enough to reduce that heat much.
And if it's not focussed that much, then it is concentrating light on the windows and body work, as well as the PV panels.
For the mentally ill that think that everyone is recording you all the time because of your paranoia and your inability to see that the record light is on?
Before you try being patronising, you might want to check the Google Glass specs. There is no red record light visible to the person the camera is pointed at. Nor is there on most other video cameras manufactured since the 1990s.
Concept cars are never manufactured. But this concept is more ridiculous than most.
Even if the car isn't melted, it's going to be obscenely hot to get in after a summer day's charging. Even if you can, you'll need most of the stored solar power to run air-conditioning.
Besides, cars are generally driven during the day, and parked at home at night, when the sun isn't shining.
True. But prescriptions are not just subsidised, they are effectively capped. Each item is the same low price of £7.85. And if you envisage having to get a lot of prescriptions there is an annual subscription for about £100. This is effectively nothing compared to what Americans are paying.
And even those low charges are not paid by children, senior citizens, people on welfare, and people in hospital.
All of which I'm sure you know, but I'm just stating it for those that don't know the uk system.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't resist posting when my bullshit detector goes off. Not just under this story, but under every slashdot story I read.
The extreme drop off in efficiency causes the non-performance cars to rapidly drop below the performance cars in MPG
That's the bit I think is nonsense. And again, Top Gear might demonstrate, but what they don't do is actually perform the test for real. They are TV programme makers - they write a script, then they film it. The outcome is already decided.
A statement about as moronic and useless as saying "guns don't kill, the bullets do".
A statement that is both moronic and false - bullets don't kill people either.
Yes, I said it was moronic and useless.
I'm sure you looked
No I didn't. I was on safe enough ground I didn't feel the need to double check before posting.
Her car has real time MPG reporting. The drop off in efficiency between 55mph and 65mph was like a cliff. The drop off in efficiency for performance cars appears, in my experience at least, to be less extreme.
That I'm sure is true. But it's not the same thing as you said Top Gear had demonstrated.
A skilled driver in a well maintained vehicle can travel faster than an unskilled driver in a vehicle with worn suspension and bald tires.
The problem is that 90% of drivers think they are have driving skills that are above average. And they are similarly bad at judging the true state of their car.
This is why we have limits and don't allow people to decide their own maximum speed. People are not nearly as good a judge of their abilities or the risks as they think they are. And that includes me and you.
Try using a dedicated sat nav. Is Google Maps navigation even out of beta yet?
Child protection is all fine and well as long as you can turn that crap off when you don't have children to protect against.
Look at the edge of the door when the door is open. There's a switch to switch it off.
I mean, no one I know growing up before this charming invention had problems with kids falling out of moving cars left and right..?
Right, because it'd have to be a personal experience for every community before it would have been worth adding these simply safety devices.
(it doesn't, the sudden deceleration does)
A statement about as moronic and useless as saying "guns don't kill, the bullets do".
Neither the people who came up with the slogan "Speed Kills", nor the people that use it, think that driving at 90mph causes spontaneous death. They are all very aware that it's the sudden deceleration when you hit something whilst travelling at that speed that tends to produce death.
On your majority claim, please show an official efficiency curve for any car that does more mph at 90 than 55. My bet is you can't. Because it's nonsense.
Top gear did a good episode demonstrating fuel efficiency where they put something like a Ford Focus (some small "economical" hatchback) up against a BMW M3 on their track.
You seem to have forgotten that Top Gear is an entertainment show, not a fact based programme. Their races, their stunts and their reviews are all stories that are scripted and then filmed. Any resemblance to reality is only ever coincidental.
Top Gear viewers want to believe that they can be more economical in a BMW than a Ford Focus is driven with skill, so that's what they show them. It might be true, it might not be, there's no way of knowing, unless someone genuinely does the test. Top Gear certainly won't have done.
In 1977, I rented a Camaro to drive home from Virginia Beach. On the drive home, I drove the speed limit. I had to stop for fuel before I arrived home. I drove around after I got home, then fueled up for the drive back to Va. Beach. On the drive back to the naval base, I drove like a madman. I DID NOT have to stop for fuel - I returned the car with the needle just about at the "E", but it still had some gas.
Well that experience surely proves the manufacturers own figures wrong.
Driving 75 mph instead of 50 mph reduces my drive time by about 33%.
Very unlikely. That would apply if you had a clear trafficless road all the way, with no junctions to slow or stop for. Virtually no real journeys are like that.
In reality you are talking about your highway cruising speed, and and depending on your journey, a fair proportion of the time, if not the distance, will be on local roads.
The problem in the GP's scenario is the unpredictability introduced by one car's sudden change from "steady state" to "who knows what will happen next!?!"
A human driver typically makes a single prediction of what a car is going to do. A computer can constantly make many predictions of what may happen.
A computer can calculate the extremes of the envelope of what can happen, and allow for them, and can react in a small fraction of the time of a human.
Human accidents are often be caused by other drivers behaving unpredictably. Computer driven cars - not necessarily so.
That's a different concept entirely. This story is about headlights, and no actual laser light exits the car.
But you can make a mobile phone in many different forms. The one that Android phones tend to use is copied from iPhone, but there are plenty of other options. We've seen plenty of options over the years. Indeed as I said, Android's original reference design was a Blackberry copy, which is quite different from an iPhone copy. And there are plenty of other design options that haven't been made into devices yet.
Or take a different job. McDonalds are usually hiring.
There is virtually never only one option. No options of jobs, that happens. Several options of jobs, that happens too. But precisely one option of job: that's an unlikely proposition. It happens, but not often enough to explain the number of people that do cold-calling jobs.
Making the job even shittier reduces the number of people that are willing to do it. And that's a good thing. I have no sympathy for those that chose to do the job.
I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for people who take jobs that largely consist of annoying people. And that includes all cold-calling. We should do nothing to make their job easier and everything to make their job harder.
The idea to filter the light is a good one, thanks. However...
The idea that taking the exact same sort of stuff we already have and slapping a solar panel on the roof where there is otherwise just metal is "more ridiculous than most" concept car ideas, is absurd.
But that clearly was not the idea that I called more ridiculous than most. It was the magnifying car port that I called ridiculous, for 2 reasons, only one of which you partially addressed.
They are saying that the lens provides for 10 times as much solar power. Well roughly speaking that means about 10 times as much heat concentrated on the car too. PV cells are not efficient enough to reduce that heat much.
And if it's not focussed that much, then it is concentrating light on the windows and body work, as well as the PV panels.
Right. I'm just correcting the myth that there's a red recording light.
But no one is suggesting it's a spy cam. That's not one of the many objections. It's a straw-man.
For the mentally ill that think that everyone is recording you all the time because of your paranoia and your inability to see that the record light is on?
Before you try being patronising, you might want to check the Google Glass specs. There is no red record light visible to the person the camera is pointed at. Nor is there on most other video cameras manufactured since the 1990s.
Concept cars are never manufactured. But this concept is more ridiculous than most.
Even if the car isn't melted, it's going to be obscenely hot to get in after a summer day's charging. Even if you can, you'll need most of the stored solar power to run air-conditioning.
Besides, cars are generally driven during the day, and parked at home at night, when the sun isn't shining.
True. But prescriptions are not just subsidised, they are effectively capped. Each item is the same low price of £7.85. And if you envisage having to get a lot of prescriptions there is an annual subscription for about £100. This is effectively nothing compared to what Americans are paying.
And even those low charges are not paid by children, senior citizens, people on welfare, and people in hospital.
All of which I'm sure you know, but I'm just stating it for those that don't know the uk system.
If you don't want politics stories, go to your account settings and exclude stories by topic "politics".