24 City/ 30 hwy for the 2.5 gasoline, with 2.2 Diesel and 2.0 gasoline available. That's pretty good for an SUV. About mid-pack for the hybrid SUVs. And it's not a hybrid.
"The EPA rated the CX-5's gas mileage as the best in its class, averaging 26mpg city and 35mpg highway, which Mazda claims is the best mileage of any non-hybrid SUV." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
I've had a number of cars without vacuum brake boost (VW/Audi liked vacuum, but others liked belted pumps or electric pumps). Seems funny to have brake power inversely proportional to throttle. I've never had the failure you described, but I've had brake failure from other losses of brake pressure, and they'd let me push th epedal, but stopping would be inhibited. Even if you turned the car off (I had an '81 Accord with stalling issues), and pumped the brakes to lose all brake pressure, 10x pressure or so would work about the same as normal.
Not at all. I owned the car. I saw the 60 minutes report. People claimed the car "suddenly took off" and "could not budge the brake pedal". This was the exact behaviour that my car exhibited.
So you are saying that you pressed on the brake pedal as hard as you can, and you were unable to get the pedal to move, and it's the first and last time that problem happened? That's a different issue to a cruise control problem (something that plagued American makers for 20+ years).
From the coal plant your neigbor uses because you paid more than market for your energy, resulting in more people buying "dirty" energy. Also, from the carbon used to manufacture and maintain the plants you get power from.
I would consider the proper test of his hypothesis to be the number of "coins" mined by people mining their first coin. But I couldn't find a chart for that.
You asked if I really could foresee "no possible" scenarios. That's quite a strict standard. If that's not what you believe, you were trolling when you trolled for my answer to your rhetorical question.
But no, there is no reasonable scenario where the US fights a war without air superiority. China isn't a military enemy. A war between primary trading partners is unreasonable. And Russian war seems unlikely.
When you practice a technique long enough, it's not distracting. Perhaps you should advocate making manuals illegal, as they distract from the road, with all those extra controls.
Nope. In Alaska, hunting is required to have some fairness. Bear baiting is illegal. Hunting from the air is illegal (but culling from the air is legal, as it isn't hunting). And trapping isn't hunting.
Sure, and you can heel-toe the TV remote. That doesn't make it heel-toeing as it pertains to driving. And because you have a spare foot on the dead pedal, you would use that for the brake so that you could possibly use your heel and toe, but it doesn't fit any reasonable definition of "heel-toe" (which, according to your link is done to allow your left foot to use the clutch). Why did you link to a page that directly contradicts yourself?
It isn't "hunting" to shoot them on your own land. On your own land, there is no limit, and no season, and they are "nuisance animals". When your deer are on your private land, the only rules that apply are animal cruelty laws.
Given the current state of the world, can you really foresee no possible scenarios where dogfighting might be necessary?
So the military is to not just face any likely threat, but every possible threat, no matter how unlikely. The military is already about the same as the rest of the world combined. How much more do you think we need?
I RTFA, and aside from sales people on the phone quoting the wrong processor, I didn't see anything that indicated a "deadline" for shipping only the new one. The story isn't about something like MS promising the newer processer and not delivering, but a call center person making an error in confirming a specification. There is a difference in intent and action, even if not much difference legally.
Where do you live? I've been told that the pedals are a "safety system" and that modifying them with an unapproved modification would prevent me from passing inspection.
Why are you on the throttle coming into a turn? Trail braking is a form of late braking, and doesn't require your left foot at all, unless you are stomping both pedals to effectively brake with only the rear wheels in an FWD car (might as well use the handbrake then).
Trail-braking: As you reach the slowing point, lift your right foot from your throttle and apply the brake with your right foot. Enter the turn with above-neutral speed. Leave right foot on the brake to shift weight of vehicle foreward. When past apex, move right foot from brake to throttle. Apply appropraitely.
That you don't know what trail braking is doesn't make me wrong. It just makes you an idiot for correcting me. But then, driving is something that 90% of people think they are above average in, so I'm sure you think you are in that group. What, went karting once so you are a racing expert now?
Line locks are generally used for burnouts. They allowed a difference in braking from the front to the back. Launch control is a form of traction control.
There were lots of "failures" from many cars over the years. Nearly all the Audi issues were old people hitting the wrong pedal while parking. Your issue was unrelated to the focus of the issue at the time.
I was just responding to your point that "if it isn't necessary, it should be banned" as a logical conclusion of someone else's statements. You left out the "does it harm others (even deer)" question. I was just trying to re-context your previous comments that imply banning undesireable things because they aren't "needed" is a bad thing.
I'd take the original comments to be that because the action isn't "needed" then the restrictions on it are not overly onerous, and justfied for other reasons.
Heel-toeing is not a manual-transmission thing, you know.
But it is manual-only. In an automatic, you'd use left-foot-braking instead. From your link:
"It involves operating the throttle and brake pedals simultaneously with the right foot, while facilitating normal activation of the clutch with the left foot. "
If it's not manual only, why are you working the clutch with your left foot?
no automatic ever required heel-toe. The only reason to use both pedals in an auto (one on each pedal, no need to use one foot on both) is to spool up the turbo. But there's never a gain in using both in an electric automatic with yaw-control and traction control.
Other makers have found to be "at fault" in similar incidents with close pedals. Audi got partial blame for their unintended acceleration problems because the brake and throttle were close enough that when it was fully depressed, the driver would have trouble telling from position which pedal was depressed. Sure, you should know before you press it, but it's not like you can glance at your feet and see where they are. Aside from trucks, I can't recall any cars that you could see your feet while driving.
The real problem is that people like me would rather have the smaller pedals closer together. If they aren't packed close, how are people like me with small feet supposed to heel-toe in a manual? Those with bigger feet can manage brake with the big toe (or ball of foot) and roll the side of their foot on and off the throttle. But us small-footed people require dangerous cars to manage that in, otherwise, we are actually heel-toeing, and that's harder to get the soft touch. You can blip the throttle, but not well controll the RPM.
Kidding aside, a better question to ask them would be, 'which is preferable: to have a handful of your numbers die quickly and relatively painlessly every year, or have hundreds of thousands of your numbers die slow, painful deaths from starvation and/or disease?"
So which should we be using in famine stricken areas of Africa? Which did the people pick? Surprisingly, it seems that, given the choice, people pick the slow painful method. Why would you assume deer would choose the opposite?
Slashdot Mirror
24 City/ 30 hwy for the 2.5 gasoline, with 2.2 Diesel and 2.0 gasoline available. That's pretty good for an SUV. About mid-pack for the hybrid SUVs. And it's not a hybrid.
"The EPA rated the CX-5's gas mileage as the best in its class, averaging 26mpg city and 35mpg highway, which Mazda claims is the best mileage of any non-hybrid SUV." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
I've had a number of cars without vacuum brake boost (VW/Audi liked vacuum, but others liked belted pumps or electric pumps). Seems funny to have brake power inversely proportional to throttle. I've never had the failure you described, but I've had brake failure from other losses of brake pressure, and they'd let me push th epedal, but stopping would be inhibited. Even if you turned the car off (I had an '81 Accord with stalling issues), and pumped the brakes to lose all brake pressure, 10x pressure or so would work about the same as normal.
Not at all. I owned the car. I saw the 60 minutes report. People claimed the car "suddenly took off" and "could not budge the brake pedal". This was the exact behaviour that my car exhibited.
So you are saying that you pressed on the brake pedal as hard as you can, and you were unable to get the pedal to move, and it's the first and last time that problem happened? That's a different issue to a cruise control problem (something that plagued American makers for 20+ years).
From the coal plant your neigbor uses because you paid more than market for your energy, resulting in more people buying "dirty" energy. Also, from the carbon used to manufacture and maintain the plants you get power from.
You have to wonder how well these cars will perform for say, the SUV.
You mean like the CX-5, which bears the "Skyactive" tag and is touted as being efficient, and likely to get these technologies?
But it would fall under the same tax rules as bitcoin, so bitcoin is as "legitimate" as any illegal enterprise.
I would consider the proper test of his hypothesis to be the number of "coins" mined by people mining their first coin. But I couldn't find a chart for that.
You asked if I really could foresee "no possible" scenarios. That's quite a strict standard. If that's not what you believe, you were trolling when you trolled for my answer to your rhetorical question.
But no, there is no reasonable scenario where the US fights a war without air superiority. China isn't a military enemy. A war between primary trading partners is unreasonable. And Russian war seems unlikely.
When you practice a technique long enough, it's not distracting. Perhaps you should advocate making manuals illegal, as they distract from the road, with all those extra controls.
Nope. In Alaska, hunting is required to have some fairness. Bear baiting is illegal. Hunting from the air is illegal (but culling from the air is legal, as it isn't hunting). And trapping isn't hunting.
Sure, and you can heel-toe the TV remote. That doesn't make it heel-toeing as it pertains to driving. And because you have a spare foot on the dead pedal, you would use that for the brake so that you could possibly use your heel and toe, but it doesn't fit any reasonable definition of "heel-toe" (which, according to your link is done to allow your left foot to use the clutch). Why did you link to a page that directly contradicts yourself?
It isn't "hunting" to shoot them on your own land. On your own land, there is no limit, and no season, and they are "nuisance animals". When your deer are on your private land, the only rules that apply are animal cruelty laws.
Such terms are sloppily used, so I looked it up and used Wikipedia's definition. It doesn't agree with yours.
Given the current state of the world, can you really foresee no possible scenarios where dogfighting might be necessary?
So the military is to not just face any likely threat, but every possible threat, no matter how unlikely. The military is already about the same as the rest of the world combined. How much more do you think we need?
I RTFA, and aside from sales people on the phone quoting the wrong processor, I didn't see anything that indicated a "deadline" for shipping only the new one. The story isn't about something like MS promising the newer processer and not delivering, but a call center person making an error in confirming a specification. There is a difference in intent and action, even if not much difference legally.
Where do you live? I've been told that the pedals are a "safety system" and that modifying them with an unapproved modification would prevent me from passing inspection.
I tried it in my 2013 car, and gas and brake results in the application of both. Though it isn't a turbo, so it wouldn't help me any.
Why are you on the throttle coming into a turn? Trail braking is a form of late braking, and doesn't require your left foot at all, unless you are stomping both pedals to effectively brake with only the rear wheels in an FWD car (might as well use the handbrake then).
Trail-braking: As you reach the slowing point, lift your right foot from your throttle and apply the brake with your right foot. Enter the turn with above-neutral speed. Leave right foot on the brake to shift weight of vehicle foreward. When past apex, move right foot from brake to throttle. Apply appropraitely.
That you don't know what trail braking is doesn't make me wrong. It just makes you an idiot for correcting me. But then, driving is something that 90% of people think they are above average in, so I'm sure you think you are in that group. What, went karting once so you are a racing expert now?
Line locks are generally used for burnouts. They allowed a difference in braking from the front to the back. Launch control is a form of traction control.
There were lots of "failures" from many cars over the years. Nearly all the Audi issues were old people hitting the wrong pedal while parking. Your issue was unrelated to the focus of the issue at the time.
I was just responding to your point that "if it isn't necessary, it should be banned" as a logical conclusion of someone else's statements. You left out the "does it harm others (even deer)" question. I was just trying to re-context your previous comments that imply banning undesireable things because they aren't "needed" is a bad thing.
I'd take the original comments to be that because the action isn't "needed" then the restrictions on it are not overly onerous, and justfied for other reasons.
Heel-toeing is not a manual-transmission thing, you know.
But it is manual-only. In an automatic, you'd use left-foot-braking instead. From your link:
"It involves operating the throttle and brake pedals simultaneously with the right foot, while facilitating normal activation of the clutch with the left foot. "
If it's not manual only, why are you working the clutch with your left foot?
no automatic ever required heel-toe. The only reason to use both pedals in an auto (one on each pedal, no need to use one foot on both) is to spool up the turbo. But there's never a gain in using both in an electric automatic with yaw-control and traction control.
Other makers have found to be "at fault" in similar incidents with close pedals. Audi got partial blame for their unintended acceleration problems because the brake and throttle were close enough that when it was fully depressed, the driver would have trouble telling from position which pedal was depressed. Sure, you should know before you press it, but it's not like you can glance at your feet and see where they are. Aside from trucks, I can't recall any cars that you could see your feet while driving.
The real problem is that people like me would rather have the smaller pedals closer together. If they aren't packed close, how are people like me with small feet supposed to heel-toe in a manual? Those with bigger feet can manage brake with the big toe (or ball of foot) and roll the side of their foot on and off the throttle. But us small-footed people require dangerous cars to manage that in, otherwise, we are actually heel-toeing, and that's harder to get the soft touch. You can blip the throttle, but not well controll the RPM.
Kidding aside, a better question to ask them would be, 'which is preferable: to have a handful of your numbers die quickly and relatively painlessly every year, or have hundreds of thousands of your numbers die slow, painful deaths from starvation and/or disease?"
So which should we be using in famine stricken areas of Africa? Which did the people pick? Surprisingly, it seems that, given the choice, people pick the slow painful method. Why would you assume deer would choose the opposite?