For all the anti car nuts.

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 25 Aug 2006 16:37:43
From: Bill Baka
Subject: For all the anti car nuts.

Check this out.

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
Bill Baka

Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:25:54
From: runcyclexcski@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

>not good
> for a guy on a motorcycle.

Yes, especially if it's an every day experience. Plus, this commute
will work only when the weather is nice.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 22:19:55
From: Bob
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

n5hsr wrote:
>
> In America there was very little 'personal' transport other than horses with
> their limited range prior to the 1890's, and, of course, shoe leather.
> Other than that, you had to book passage on a train or a ship. Even the
> great wagon trains west were an organized sort of thing.
>

I'm not sure what your exact point is or how it changes the basic
evolution of preferred transportation modes- from the slow, physically
demanding task of hauling yourself and your property around on foot, to
easier but still slow and labor intensive animal powered transport, to
physically easier and faster but rigidly scheduled public transport, to
fast and easy private transport whenever it's desired- so I have no
idea how to reply.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:13:34
From: Bob
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

n5hsr wrote:

>
> If y'all will remember correctly, the bicyclist of America started the push
> for personal, private transportation and good roads over 110 years ago We
> started it. The Model T just roared right past us and pushed it further
> and faster. (The Model T could go a whopping 40 mph.)
> Then GM decided to kill off inter-urban travel to increase their ket for
> cars in the 1940's and 50's.
>

I was referring to the entire history of transportation so to say the
push for personal private transportation and good roads started 110
years ago is simply inaccurate.The 1st century Romans imported horses
from Asia and Africa and built a heckuva lot of roads for the same
reasons I mentioned- to make getting from point A to point B easier,
faster, and more convenient.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:13:32
From: Bob
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:13:30
From: Bob
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 22:49:48
From: n5hsr
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

"Bob" <hunrobe@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156731210.547630.207190@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> n5hsr wrote:
>
>>
>> If y'all will remember correctly, the bicyclist of America started the
>> push
>> for personal, private transportation and good roads over 110 years ago
>> We
>> started it. The Model T just roared right past us and pushed it
>> further
>> and faster. (The Model T could go a whopping 40 mph.)
>> Then GM decided to kill off inter-urban travel to increase their ket
>> for
>> cars in the 1940's and 50's.
>>
>
> I was referring to the entire history of transportation so to say the
> push for personal private transportation and good roads started 110
> years ago is simply inaccurate.The 1st century Romans imported horses
> from Asia and Africa and built a heckuva lot of roads for the same
> reasons I mentioned- to make getting from point A to point B easier,
> faster, and more convenient.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>

In America there was very little 'personal' transport other than horses with
their limited range prior to the 1890's, and, of course, shoe leather.
Other than that, you had to book passage on a train or a ship. Even the
great wagon trains west were an organized sort of thing.

Charles of Schaumburg.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 10:22:53
From: Bob
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Tom Keats wrote:
>
> Maybe the right direction is toward a place & time where
> private cars of any sort are largely rendered obsolete.
>
> We could go there right now, if there were a will to do so.
> Inter-urban, at-grade light rail (trams) would go a long way
> toward that end. Networks of inter-urban light rail systems
> could provide for longer distance travel.
>
> With our current telecomm technology, a lot of desk-sitters
> shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces.
>

Tom,

Starting with the invention of the wheel, the entire history of
transportation can be accurately described as a series of ongoing
attempts to make getting from point A to point B easier, faster, and
more convenient. That's why every attempt to replace personal private
transportation with public mass transit of any kind is doomed to
failure. It's much better to improve the personal private
transportation options and augment them with public transit.
BTW, you say with "our current telecomm technology, a lot of
desk-sitters shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces". That may be
true for a very small percentage of the jobs and jobholders out there
but even for those positions disconnecting from any real human contact
is, well, dehumanizing.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:21:31
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Bob wrote:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> Maybe the right direction is toward a place & time where
>> private cars of any sort are largely rendered obsolete.
>>
>> We could go there right now, if there were a will to do so.
>> Inter-urban, at-grade light rail (trams) would go a long way
>> toward that end. Networks of inter-urban light rail systems
>> could provide for longer distance travel.
>>
>> With our current telecomm technology, a lot of desk-sitters
>> shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces.
>>
>
> Tom,
>
> Starting with the invention of the wheel, the entire history of
> transportation can be accurately described as a series of ongoing
> attempts to make getting from point A to point B easier, faster, and
> more convenient. That's why every attempt to replace personal private
> transportation with public mass transit of any kind is doomed to
> failure. It's much better to improve the personal private
> transportation options and augment them with public transit.
> BTW, you say with "our current telecomm technology, a lot of
> desk-sitters shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces". That may be
> true for a very small percentage of the jobs and jobholders out there
> but even for those positions disconnecting from any real human contact
> is, well, dehumanizing.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>
Not to mention that most of the high tech electronics companies I have
worked for where I 'could' have telecommuted had a policy against it. On
a few consulting jobs where I set my own terms I worked at home but
still had to go in about every 2 weeks for an engineering review
meeting. Pain in the rear living 150 miles from Silicon valley, which is
a traffic nighte in itself. Mass transit for that? Impossible
logistics. It was nice to go in and talk to people who knew what I was
talking about rather than the blank stares I get at home and from my
friends up here. It is fun to go into a Radio Shack and ask the 'expert'
kid something really high tech and watch him try to bluff his way
through it, or get the manager and watch him fumble.
The moral here is that I really do need a car sometimes, and yes, I am a
st ass when I go into Radio Shack since I hate the place.
Bill Baka

Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:39:24
From: n5hsr
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

"Bill Baka" <bbaka@syix.com > wrote in message
news:%gmIg.3359$tU.1965@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Bob wrote:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>> Maybe the right direction is toward a place & time where
>>> private cars of any sort are largely rendered obsolete.
>>>
>>> We could go there right now, if there were a will to do so.
>>> Inter-urban, at-grade light rail (trams) would go a long way
>>> toward that end. Networks of inter-urban light rail systems
>>> could provide for longer distance travel.
>>>
>>> With our current telecomm technology, a lot of desk-sitters
>>> shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces.
>>>
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Starting with the invention of the wheel, the entire history of
>> transportation can be accurately described as a series of ongoing
>> attempts to make getting from point A to point B easier, faster, and
>> more convenient. That's why every attempt to replace personal private
>> transportation with public mass transit of any kind is doomed to
>> failure. It's much better to improve the personal private
>> transportation options and augment them with public transit.
>> BTW, you say with "our current telecomm technology, a lot of
>> desk-sitters shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces". That may be
>> true for a very small percentage of the jobs and jobholders out there
>> but even for those positions disconnecting from any real human contact
>> is, well, dehumanizing.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob Hunt
>>
> Not to mention that most of the high tech electronics companies I have
> worked for where I 'could' have telecommuted had a policy against it. On a
> few consulting jobs where I set my own terms I worked at home but still
> had to go in about every 2 weeks for an engineering review meeting. Pain
> in the rear living 150 miles from Silicon valley, which is a traffic
> nighte in itself. Mass transit for that? Impossible logistics. It was
> nice to go in and talk to people who knew what I was talking about rather
> than the blank stares I get at home and from my friends up here. It is fun
> to go into a Radio Shack and ask the 'expert' kid something really high
> tech and watch him try to bluff his way through it, or get the manager and
> watch him fumble.
> The moral here is that I really do need a car sometimes, and yes, I am a
> st ass when I go into Radio Shack since I hate the place.
> Bill Baka

Years ago, I used to be friends with the local RS manager, but then, I was
the best tube customer they had in those days. Probably the most tubes
they'd sold since the 1960's. Only problem was I couldn't get three
matched 6JB6's and that was a problem.

Charles of Schaumburg
OOF. Maybe even older than Saint Edward the Doughboy. from MinneFroZen.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:48:56
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

n5hsr wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@syix.com> wrote in message
> news:%gmIg.3359$tU.1965@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> Bob wrote:
>>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>>> Maybe the right direction is toward a place & time where
>>>> private cars of any sort are largely rendered obsolete.
>>>>
>>>> We could go there right now, if there were a will to do so.
>>>> Inter-urban, at-grade light rail (trams) would go a long way
>>>> toward that end. Networks of inter-urban light rail systems
>>>> could provide for longer distance travel.
>>>>
>>>> With our current telecomm technology, a lot of desk-sitters
>>>> shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces.
>>>>
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> Starting with the invention of the wheel, the entire history of
>>> transportation can be accurately described as a series of ongoing
>>> attempts to make getting from point A to point B easier, faster, and
>>> more convenient. That's why every attempt to replace personal private
>>> transportation with public mass transit of any kind is doomed to
>>> failure. It's much better to improve the personal private
>>> transportation options and augment them with public transit.
>>> BTW, you say with "our current telecomm technology, a lot of
>>> desk-sitters shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces". That may be
>>> true for a very small percentage of the jobs and jobholders out there
>>> but even for those positions disconnecting from any real human contact
>>> is, well, dehumanizing.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bob Hunt
>>>
>> Not to mention that most of the high tech electronics companies I have
>> worked for where I 'could' have telecommuted had a policy against it. On a
>> few consulting jobs where I set my own terms I worked at home but still
>> had to go in about every 2 weeks for an engineering review meeting. Pain
>> in the rear living 150 miles from Silicon valley, which is a traffic
>> nighte in itself. Mass transit for that? Impossible logistics. It was
>> nice to go in and talk to people who knew what I was talking about rather
>> than the blank stares I get at home and from my friends up here. It is fun
>> to go into a Radio Shack and ask the 'expert' kid something really high
>> tech and watch him try to bluff his way through it, or get the manager and
>> watch him fumble.
>> The moral here is that I really do need a car sometimes, and yes, I am a
>> st ass when I go into Radio Shack since I hate the place.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Years ago, I used to be friends with the local RS manager, but then, I was
> the best tube customer they had in those days. Probably the most tubes
> they'd sold since the 1960's. Only problem was I couldn't get three
> matched 6JB6's and that was a problem.
>
> Charles of Schaumburg
> OOF. Maybe even older than Saint Edward the Doughboy. from MinneFroZen.
>
>
The reason I hate Radio shack is that they were mainly responsible for
putting the real electronics hobby stores out of business and probably
also Eico, Lafayette, Heathkit, and by way of selling their Radio
shack/un-Realistic junk, killed Hallicrafters and many more. Where can
you buy an air gang metal tuning capacitor anymore? Garage sales. I buy
old tube radios for a dollar or 2, sometimes free, just for the parts if
it isn't working. Now that everything is going to absurdly small surface
mount, how are kids going to get involved with building crystal sets and
such to get interested in high tech? I think we are in real trouble but
the government hasn't realized it yet and the semiconductor companies
don't care that by not making parts with leads they are going to cause a
shortage of engineers in the future. Are we going forward or back?
Bill Baka

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:02:53
From: n5hsr
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

> The reason I hate Radio shack is that they were mainly responsible for
> putting the real electronics hobby stores out of business and probably
> also Eico, Lafayette, Heathkit, and by way of selling their Radio
> shack/un-Realistic junk, killed Hallicrafters and many more. Where can you
> buy an air gang metal tuning capacitor anymore? Garage sales. I buy old
> tube radios for a dollar or 2, sometimes free, just for the parts if it
> isn't working. Now that everything is going to absurdly small surface
> mount, how are kids going to get involved with building crystal sets and
> such to get interested in high tech? I think we are in real trouble but
> the government hasn't realized it yet and the semiconductor companies
> don't care that by not making parts with leads they are going to cause a
> shortage of engineers in the future. Are we going forward or back?
> Bill Baka

I miss B/A, Olsen, yes, I even miss GriefKit. I miss the warm glow of my
dad's old S-38 as we listened to WWV to get a time hack in Morse Code (.--
.-- ...- .-- .-- ...- ..--- .---- ----- -----)

I used to have an AM transmitter. At one point I had two of them, both
under 50 mw. Also had two WT's at 50 mw on channels 13 and 14 on 11
meters. I built at least one 'crystal' set, and probably helped my brother
build a second one when he was old enough. I'm 6 years older.

Charles of Schaumburg

Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:01:42
From: n5hsr
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

"Bob" <hunrobe@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156699373.256293.264010@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>> Maybe the right direction is toward a place & time where
>> private cars of any sort are largely rendered obsolete.
>>
>> We could go there right now, if there were a will to do so.
>> Inter-urban, at-grade light rail (trams) would go a long way
>> toward that end. Networks of inter-urban light rail systems
>> could provide for longer distance travel.
>>
>> With our current telecomm technology, a lot of desk-sitters
>> shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces.
>>
>
> Tom,
>
> Starting with the invention of the wheel, the entire history of
> transportation can be accurately described as a series of ongoing
> attempts to make getting from point A to point B easier, faster, and
> more convenient. That's why every attempt to replace personal private
> transportation with public mass transit of any kind is doomed to
> failure. It's much better to improve the personal private
> transportation options and augment them with public transit.
> BTW, you say with "our current telecomm technology, a lot of
> desk-sitters shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces". That may be
> true for a very small percentage of the jobs and jobholders out there
> but even for those positions disconnecting from any real human contact
> is, well, dehumanizing.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>

If y'all will remember correctly, the bicyclist of America started the push
for personal, private transportation and good roads over 110 years ago We
started it. The Model T just roared right past us and pushed it further
and faster. (The Model T could go a whopping 40 mph.)
Then GM decided to kill off inter-urban travel to increase their ket for
cars in the 1940's and 50's.

Charles of Schaumburg

Date: 26 Aug 2006 22:32:33
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

In article <pan.2006.08.27.04.19.52.888166@behanna.org >,
Chris BeHanna <chris@behanna.org > writes:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:33:17 -0700, Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> In article <dE7Ig.11210$%j7.2849@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
>>
>> Inter-urban light rail can easily and readily deal with 50 mile (+)
>> distances.
>
> It is not always economically feasible to build rail out into the
> sticks, where some people who commute to the city actually live.
> Ridership wouldn't be high enough.

It's a "2-way street". A lot of businesses build out in the
sticks where real estate is cheaper, so city-dwelling workers
(like myself) end up commuting out into the Forgotten Wastelands
in a sort of reverse commute.

During the first half of the 20th century, light rail actually
/was/ built out into the sticks. And it worked, and it worked
well. Then the car purveyors kyboshed it, insisting buses
(Rails To Rubber) were the way to go. Then the buses got yanked
out like a carpet from under our feet, leaving people with no other
perceived option but to buy the car purveyors' cars.

So now we have suburban dwellers who have to go to far-flung, other
suburban workplaces, which often usurp good agicultural land..

As The Cars' first album song says: it's all mixed up.

It's just plain stupid.

cheers,
Tom

--
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Date: 26 Aug 2006 20:33:17
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

In article <dE7Ig.11210$%j7.2849@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net >,

>>> A car yes, but not a 15 MPG SUV.
>>> At least they are headed in the right direction even if the car costs
>>> more than you would spend on gas for 100,000 miles.
>>
>> Maybe the right direction is toward a place & time where
>> private cars of any sort are largely rendered obsolete.
>>
>> We could go there right now, if there were a will to do so.
>> Inter-urban, at-grade light rail (trams) would go a long way
>> toward that end. Networks of inter-urban light rail systems
>> could provide for longer distance travel.
>>
>> With our current telecomm technology, a lot of desk-sitters
>> shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces.
>>
>>> Besides, it will
>>> beat a Ferrari.
>>
>> As if that's important.
>>
>> Anyways, yeah, it's still another stupid car.
>>
>>
>> klahowya,
>> Tom
>>
> Unless you live so far in the city that you never have to carry home
> building materials or bring home that 800 pound super antique dresser
> you found at a sale, or find a job for $100K+ 50 miles away you might
> never realize that cars will never go away.

Inter-urban light rail can easily and readily deal with 50 mile (+)
distances.

> Out here in the country
> there are a necessity sometimes, like when I have to go 40 miles to buy
> a new computer case, power supply, and motherboard that I could never
> find in my small town. Sure I minimize the car use, but damn it, I
> absolutely have to have one where I live. You can be as anti car as you
> want

Thank you. I will.

> but may wind up looking totally stupid on that occasion when you
> totally must have one to get something done.

"Needing" a personal, private car (1.5 tons of machinery just
to move a single person) indeed often does tend to make one
look stupid. A society that demands that /everybody/ needs a
personal private car is extremely stupid.

Anyways, I'm riding off to my favourite Chinese food take-out
place for a combination dinner #1. Or maybe a Sing Cho chow
mein and a yung chow fried rice. I'll figure it out when I
get there.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Date: 27 Aug 2006 00:19:53
From: Chris BeHanna
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:33:17 -0700, Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <dE7Ig.11210$%j7.2849@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
>
> Inter-urban light rail can easily and readily deal with 50 mile (+)
> distances.

It is not always economically feasible to build rail out into the
sticks, where some people who commute to the city actually live.
Ridership wouldn't be high enough.

That said, if there was a light rail route between Butler and
Pittsburgh, and if it had a schedule that worked for me, AND if it either
had WiMax so that I could work on the train *OR* didn't take more than
twice as long as driving to work, I'd use it.

My current mass transit option is to drive half an hour to the
terminal stop of the express bus line, wait ten minutes for the bus, and
then sit on that bus for 45 minutes, wait another 15-20 minutes for a
connecting bus downtown (it's all hub-and-spoke, don'cha know, and home
and work are on different spokes), then sit on *that* bus for another ten
minutes, then walk for another five. That's an hour and forty-five
minutes. If I drive, it's only 45 minutes. I ride my bike sometimes, and
that works out to two hours and forty minutes.

Yeah, I could move closer to work, but then I'd pay higher taxes and
I wouldn't be out near quiet rural roads that are so much nicer for bike
riding.

The "cars should just go away" absolutists don't like to consider
these things. :-(

--
Chris BeHanna
'03 Specialized Allez Elite 27
'04 Specialized Hardrock Pro Disc

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Date: 26 Aug 2006 19:40:41
From: runcyclexcski@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

> >
> > Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
> > Bill Baka
>
> Yes? It's a car.

how much do gas-burning cars tha can do 60 mph in 4 s cost? eq or more?

i wonder how much a 60 mph in 12 s Tesla car would cost. Probably less.
But hard to say exactly by how much.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 00:21:00
From: Chris BeHanna
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:40:41 -0700, runcyclexcski@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>> >
>> > Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
>> > Bill Baka
>>
>> Yes? It's a car.
>
> how much do gas-burning cars tha can do 60 mph in 4 s cost? eq or more?

Quite a lot.

OTOH, a motorcycle that can do 0-60 in 4s is perhaps a thousand
bucks, and it will get 50mpg or more if properly tuned.

--
Chris BeHanna
'03 Specialized Allez Elite 27
'04 Specialized Hardrock Pro Disc

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:04:46
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Chris BeHanna wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:40:41 -0700, runcyclexcski@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>> Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> Yes? It's a car.
>> how much do gas-burning cars tha can do 60 mph in 4 s cost? eq or more?
>
> Quite a lot.
>
> OTOH, a motorcycle that can do 0-60 in 4s is perhaps a thousand
> bucks, and it will get 50mpg or more if properly tuned.
>
Yeah,
That I do know since I have owned a lot of bikes from a Honda 50 back in
1966 to 3 Kawasaki 750cc 2 stroke insanely fast bikes. Try 0-60 in about
2.5 if you could keep the front wheel on the ground. Fast but the 750
only got about 35 MPG. I had a Honda 350 that got about 55 MPG and was
good both around town and on the highway without being excessive. Now I
can't find anything I like because all the Jap bikes I have seen are the
lay down racer style and a real sit up Harley starts at about $14,000.
My wife and I both want some little 100cc street bikes to tool around on
but they are now making just dirt bikes on the smaller sizes. My wife
will ride a motorcycle but refuses to ride a bicycle.
If I seriously had to commute 40 miles each way I might consider buying
a good late 70's bike in the 350 to 500cc range so I could get maybe 50
MPG and not have to drive a 4 wheel monster. The SUV crowd is really
dangerous during the commute though, a cell phone in one hand, and a cup
of coffee in the holder and they are multitasking at 75 MPH. Not good
for a guy on a motorcycle.
OK,
That was a short rant, but I am thinking of an alternative to a car if I
ever have to commute.
Bill Baka

Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:46:35
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com > wrote:

>That I do know since I have owned a lot of bikes from a Honda 50 back in
>1966 to 3 Kawasaki 750cc 2 stroke insanely fast bikes. Try 0-60 in about
>2.5 if you could keep the front wheel on the ground.

The Kaw triples felt a lot faster than they really were - mainly
because of the spikey power band (which always seemed way, way too
narrow). They'd run 12.0 second quarters out of the box - over a
second slower than my V65 Magna, which is slow by today's superbike
standards.

But I finally gave up and traded power for handling and brakes (and
ride a BMW K-brick now).

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 27 Aug 2006 22:50:10
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

k Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com> wrote:
>
>> That I do know since I have owned a lot of bikes from a Honda 50 back in
>> 1966 to 3 Kawasaki 750cc 2 stroke insanely fast bikes. Try 0-60 in about
>> 2.5 if you could keep the front wheel on the ground.
>
> The Kaw triples felt a lot faster than they really were - mainly
> because of the spikey power band (which always seemed way, way too
> narrow). They'd run 12.0 second quarters out of the box - over a
> second slower than my V65 Magna, which is slow by today's superbike
> standards.
>
> But I finally gave up and traded power for handling and brakes (and
> ride a BMW K-brick now).
>
> k Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

Mine weren't exactly "Out of the box.". I had some mods on all of them
and the last one I had heavily modified, even to a 1 tooth larger
sprocket on the front for a sort of overdrive. The first one I managed
an 11.2 at about 115 MPH and that was the slowest one. I never took the
really modified one to the strip but other guys had wheelie bars on
theirs and were running mid 9's at about 135-140. My last one with the
Denco headers on it and the other mods put out power past 12,000 RPM
where I shifted rather than take the chance of exploding the motor. With
the fiberglass silencers out I had to wear ear plugs but it gained about
30 HP that way. That was the one I pegged the speedo at about 170 MPH
and the tach just kept climbing losing that darn CHP in the desert.
That's why I guessed close to 200 MPH since I was so far past pegging
the speedo. The modified ones did put out close to 150 HP with the
silencers out and 120 HP with the baffles in. I saw a set of Denco
chambers on Ebay for $1200 and 20 bids going up fast. If they command
that much money they must have been the best.
I am still saving my nickels and dimes in the hope I can buy another
since I hate the new bikes and always lay on the tank.
Bill Baka

P.S. About 2 weeks back there was a thing about bimmers and beemers for
BSA's. A BSA was properly referred to as a beezer back in the 70's.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 18:52:33
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

In article <Y31Ig.11119$%j7.6724@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com > writes:
> John Kane wrote:
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>> Check this out.
>>>
>>> http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
>>>
>>> Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> Yes? It's a car.
>>
> A car yes, but not a 15 MPG SUV.
> At least they are headed in the right direction even if the car costs
> more than you would spend on gas for 100,000 miles.

Maybe the right direction is toward a place & time where
private cars of any sort are largely rendered obsolete.

We could go there right now, if there were a will to do so.
Inter-urban, at-grade light rail (trams) would go a long way
toward that end. Networks of inter-urban light rail systems
could provide for longer distance travel.

With our current telecomm technology, a lot of desk-sitters
shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces.

> Besides, it will
> beat a Ferrari.

As if that's important.

Anyways, yeah, it's still another stupid car.

klahowya,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Date: 27 Aug 2006 02:42:17
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <Y31Ig.11119$%j7.6724@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com> writes:
>> John Kane wrote:
>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>> Check this out.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
>>>>
>>>> Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> Yes? It's a car.
>>>
>> A car yes, but not a 15 MPG SUV.
>> At least they are headed in the right direction even if the car costs
>> more than you would spend on gas for 100,000 miles.
>
> Maybe the right direction is toward a place & time where
> private cars of any sort are largely rendered obsolete.
>
> We could go there right now, if there were a will to do so.
> Inter-urban, at-grade light rail (trams) would go a long way
> toward that end. Networks of inter-urban light rail systems
> could provide for longer distance travel.
>
> With our current telecomm technology, a lot of desk-sitters
> shouldn't even have to travel to workplaces.
>
>> Besides, it will
>> beat a Ferrari.
>
> As if that's important.
>
> Anyways, yeah, it's still another stupid car.
>
>
> klahowya,
> Tom
>
Unless you live so far in the city that you never have to carry home
building materials or bring home that 800 pound super antique dresser
you found at a sale, or find a job for $100K+ 50 miles away you might
never realize that cars will never go away. Out here in the country
there are a necessity sometimes, like when I have to go 40 miles to buy
a new computer case, power supply, and motherboard that I could never
find in my small town. Sure I minimize the car use, but damn it, I
absolutely have to have one where I live. You can be as anti car as you
want but may wind up looking totally stupid on that occasion when you
totally must have one to get something done.
Bill (dealing in reality) Baka

Date: 26 Aug 2006 21:54:04
From: M. Bakunin
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

In article <dE7Ig.11210$%j7.2849@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com > wrote:

> new computer case, power supply, and motherboard that I could never
> find in my small town.

that's why you have ups and fedex.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Date: 27 Aug 2006 03:59:27
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

M. Bakunin wrote:
> In article <dE7Ig.11210$%j7.2849@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com> wrote:
>
>> new computer case, power supply, and motherboard that I could never
>> find in my small town.
>
> that's why you have ups and fedex.

Yeah right,
I have tried that, used to be an Ebay addict and a lot of times if you
can't get your hands on it and see if things will fit right you have
wasted your time. I buy big tower servers cases so I can put a ton of
stuff in one case and I can only see the inside arrangement in the
store. Some only an idiot would buy that way, others you are buying a
known brand because you have seen your neighbors and liked it.
I still need a car. Last month I had to drive 81 miles each way for a
possible contract job that may have become a computer telecommute but
they wanted me to be there every day, a 2 hour drive each way, so, no
way. If you go to a job interview on a bike you are going to look like
an idiot, unless you want to apply at McDonalds.
Bill Baka

Date: 26 Aug 2006 18:38:11
From: greggery peccary
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

"Bill Baka" <bbaka@syix.com > wrote in message
news:rHFHg.3039$yO7.2147@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Check this out.
>
> http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
>
> Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
> Bill Baka

gotta like the name! the inventor who likely had the most direct impact on
human society relegated to the shelves of engineers and conspiracy theorists

Date: 27 Aug 2006 02:37:13
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

greggery peccary wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@syix.com> wrote in message
> news:rHFHg.3039$yO7.2147@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> Check this out.
>>
>> http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
>>
>> Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
>> Bill Baka
>
> gotta like the name! the inventor who likely had the most direct impact on
> human society relegated to the shelves of engineers and conspiracy theorists
>
>
Yeah,
Tesla was much more of a genius than Edison, who stole most of his ideas
and ran to the patent shop. Edison wanted to distribute DC electricity
while Tesla realized that was totally impractical because transformers
and induction motors don't work on DC. I saw a guy build a Tesla coil
that filled his whole garage with multi million volt sparks and totally
terrified all the wives and kids who saw it. If Edison hadn't been in
his way Tesla may have invented and patented a whole lot more good stuff.
Bill Baka

Date: 26 Aug 2006 10:25:43
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Bill Baka wrote:
> Check this out.
>
> http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
>
> Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
> Bill Baka

Yes? It's a car.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 19:14:00
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

John Kane wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> Check this out.
>>
>> http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
>>
>> Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Yes? It's a car.
>
A car yes, but not a 15 MPG SUV.
At least they are headed in the right direction even if the car costs
more than you would spend on gas for 100,000 miles. Besides, it will
beat a Ferrari.
Bill Baka

Date: 25 Aug 2006 15:03:44
From: Kadaltcha Man
Subject: Re: Charity Riders Killed

Dane Buson wrote:

> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>>
>>>An article at CNN.Com indicates that two bicycle riders who were on a
>>>charity ride were killed when a truck ran into the van that was
>>>following them. See link below.
>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/22/police.bike.wreck.ap/index.html
>>
>> Negligent homicide. I hope the truck driver does time for that.
>> Inexcusable.
>
> Yeah, the truck must have had a *huge* delta-V in comparison to the van
> to kill two riders. I predict a stiffer than normal sentence, since
> judges and juries (rightfully IMO) take a dim view of people killing
> cops (even off-duty).

"regular" cyclists getting killed wouldn't be so important would it? it's
just someone else's loved one, after all.

> Also, it sounds like it was a four-lane highway, so the truck *could*
> have just gone into the other lane and passed if the driver was paying
> attention at all.

yeah, usually it is a good idea to pass someone safely before you rear-end
them.

--
Roberta "Foxymopjockeychickenwrist" Wolfe
"The talk of the sekret AUK
off-newsgroup listserves!"
<insert pied piper song here >
______
cujo: Just wait for the whine it's been going on about for over
cujo: four years: a s00p3r s3kr1t

Date: 26 Aug 2006 15:31:55
From: Richard B
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote in
news:teiue2pphnv77959j35tm2mid40eb9gd4a@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:37:43 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
>>
>>Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
>
> That $100K is just the _deposit_ required to get your name on one of
> the first hundred built.

I think the $100K will just barely buy the Lithium Ion batteries it runs
on.

Rich

Date: 25 Aug 2006 12:55:01
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Bill Baka wrote:
> Check this out.
>
> http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
>
> Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
> Bill Baka

Well just looking at the main page, it looks like a step in the right
direction. 250 miles per charge. But how long does it take to charge? I
didn't see that stated on the main page. I imagine it's about 8 hours or so.

Second I am not an anti-car nut. I just feel that for the most part most
motor vehicles are largely inefficient. Cars and other motor vehicle
certainly have their place in the world.

Ken
--
Messengers and mountain bikers share a common chromosome. ~James Bethea

Date: 25 Aug 2006 17:08:44
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Ken C. M. wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> Check this out.
>>
>> http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
>>
>> Of course you need $100K to buy one but it is a start.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Well just looking at the main page, it looks like a step in the right
> direction. 250 miles per charge. But how long does it take to charge? I
> didn't see that stated on the main page. I imagine it's about 8 hours or
> so.
>
> Second I am not an anti-car nut. I just feel that for the most part most
> motor vehicles are largely inefficient. Cars and other motor vehicle
> certainly have their place in the world.
>
> Ken

They say it can be charged in about 3.5 hours and gets the equivaleent
of 135 MPG. It also does 0-60 in 4 seconds and tops out at 130 MPH+. I
would call that pretty impressive for an electric car.
Bill Baka

Date: 25 Aug 2006 17:27:56
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

"Bill Baka" wrote: They say it can be charged in about 3.5 hours and gets
the equivaleent of 135 MPG (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What is the meaning of 135 MPG equivalent? Is that just a made-up number,
or have they somehow determined how much fuel it takes at the generating
station to move the car a mile?

Date: 25 Aug 2006 19:57:54
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: For all the anti car nuts.

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Bill Baka" wrote: They say it can be charged in about 3.5 hours and gets
> the equivaleent of 135 MPG (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> What is the meaning of 135 MPG equivalent? Is that just a made-up number,
> or have they somehow determined how much fuel it takes at the generating
> station to move the car a mile?
>
>
Wow,
I actually forgot to use my spell (typo) checker on this one.
The 135 MPG equivalent is something they are quoting, since they claim
that most electricity is not even derived from oil, but coal, hydro, and
well, you know the drill.
Bill Baka