bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 25 May 2007 13:39:38 From: Dieter Britz Subject: Drive shaft A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at each turn. What is the story? -- Dieter Britz, http:<slashslash >w^3.chem.au.dk/~db   Date: 06 Jun 2007 19:19:59 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 4, 11:28 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <1181009038.133073.247...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> > , > Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 2:31 am, Michael Press wrote: > > > In article > > > <1180928763.832273.253...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> > > > , > > > > datakoll aka gene wrote: > > > > On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Nexus7 wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 8:37 pm, datakoll aka gene wrote: > > > > > > > problem is: changing the rear tire. > > > > > > shaft drive changing is negative. > > > > > > > chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. > > > > > > shaft drive's are negative. > > > > > > > chain covers are socially negative due to? > > > > > > style or blind shifting? > > > > > > the accounting department? > > > > > > > shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive > > > > > > users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. > > > > > > Could you post in English, not Jabberwocky? > > > > > NO GO JUMP! READ THE FAIRY QUEEN. > > > > Did you misspell DAIRY QUEEN or Fairie Queene? > > > > He cried as raging seas are wont to roar > > > When wintry storm his wrathful wreck does threat: > > > The rolling billows beat the ragged shore > > > As they the earth would shoulder from her seat, > > > And greedy gulf does gape as he would eat > > > His neighbor element in his revenge; > > > Then gin the blustering bretheren boldly threat > > > To move the world from off his steadfast hinge, > > > And boistrous battle make, each other to avenge. > > > I prefer the version set to music by the great Henry Purcell. > > The one by Jeremiah Clarke? See <http://www.amazon.ca/Fairy-Queen-Comp-Henry-Purcell/dp/ B0000057CU >. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful   Date: 06 Jun 2007 18:18:35 From: Nexus7 Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 6, 12:09 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:38:31 +0000, Nexus7 wrote: > > The paltry 2-4% penalty of a shaft-drive is not noticed in commuter, > > utility, and recreational use, and offers superior reliability and > > durability. > > It can't be just 2-4%. This is a fact of 90 degree gear drives. Where > are you getting your figures from? This number is from the Dymamic Bicycles manufacturer site. The links in my followup to your post upthread show that this range is achievable. And no, what you're saying isn't "a fact" about right-angle drives.   Date: 05 Jun 2007 11:02:11 From: Garry Lee Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 3, 2:53 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > I cannot understand what the above means. Is it meant to mean > > anything? > > the ability to add and subtract ideas is a basic standard at the 3rd > grade level > if you can you go on > if you can't you're retarded Gosh. How about the ability to communicate ideas??? An ability which is as alien to you as calculus is to a spider.     Date: 05 Jun 2007 11:36:38 From: Mark Subject: Re: Drive shaft Garry Lee wrote: > On Jun 3, 2:53 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> I cannot understand what the above means. Is it meant to mean >>> anything? >> the ability to add and subtract ideas is a basic standard at the 3rd >> grade level >> if you can you go on >> if you can't you're retarded > > > Gosh. > > How about the ability to communicate ideas??? An ability which is as > alien to you as calculus is to a spider. Spiders know a lot of calculus, particularly optimization and so on. Just ask one. Mark J.   Date: 05 Jun 2007 17:56:56 From: Nexus7 Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 5, 12:18 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu > wrote: > Another question... does your formula give a result in radians rather > than degrees? Oh no, it's in degrees. Here's the direct link. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/torsion-shafts-d_947.html   Date: 05 Jun 2007 16:19:52 From: Nexus7 Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 4, 8:54 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jun 4, 3:39 pm, Nexus7 wrote: > > I suggest jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org stop buying his socket > > extensions from the dollar store. > > The modulus of elasticity of steel does not change significantly with > carbon or alloy content, or with heat treatment or work hardening. > Therefore, with equal diameters, for a given torque, a Snap-On socket > extension will exhibit the same degree of torsional deformation as a > made in (People's Republic of) China, cheap steel socket extension While the statement was in jest; poorly made tools are sometimes simply cast instead of forged, and will have voids and other physical imperfections. And while it's been a long time since my material science classes, there is an acceptable range of carbon, outside which the steel will lose strength (and can't be called steel either).   Date: 04 Jun 2007 19:03:58 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 4, 2:31 am, Michael Press wrote: > In article > <1180928763.832273.253...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> > , > > > > datakoll aka gene wrote: > > On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Nexus7 wrote: > > > On Jun 2, 8:37 pm, datakoll aka gene wrote: > > > > > problem is: changing the rear tire. > > > > shaft drive changing is negative. > > > > > chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. > > > > shaft drive's are negative. > > > > > chain covers are socially negative due to? > > > > style or blind shifting? > > > > the accounting department? > > > > > shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive > > > > users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. > > > > Could you post in English, not Jabberwocky? > > > NO GO JUMP! READ THE FAIRY QUEEN. > > Did you misspell DAIRY QUEEN or Fairie Queene? > > He cried as raging seas are wont to roar > When wintry storm his wrathful wreck does threat: > The rolling billows beat the ragged shore > As they the earth would shoulder from her seat, > And greedy gulf does gape as he would eat > His neighbor element in his revenge; > Then gin the blustering bretheren boldly threat > To move the world from off his steadfast hinge, > And boistrous battle make, each other to avenge. I prefer the version set to music by the great Henry Purcell. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful     Date: 05 Jun 2007 04:28:01 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <1181009038.133073.247240@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com > , Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jun 4, 2:31 am, Michael Press wrote: > > In article > > <1180928763.832273.253...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> > > , > > > > > > > > datakoll aka gene wrote: > > > On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Nexus7 wrote: > > > > On Jun 2, 8:37 pm, datakoll aka gene wrote: > > > > > > > problem is: changing the rear tire. > > > > > shaft drive changing is negative. > > > > > > > chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. > > > > > shaft drive's are negative. > > > > > > > chain covers are socially negative due to? > > > > > style or blind shifting? > > > > > the accounting department? > > > > > > > shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive > > > > > users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. > > > > > > Could you post in English, not Jabberwocky? > > > > > NO GO JUMP! READ THE FAIRY QUEEN. > > > > Did you misspell DAIRY QUEEN or Fairie Queene? > > > > He cried as raging seas are wont to roar > > When wintry storm his wrathful wreck does threat: > > The rolling billows beat the ragged shore > > As they the earth would shoulder from her seat, > > And greedy gulf does gape as he would eat > > His neighbor element in his revenge; > > Then gin the blustering bretheren boldly threat > > To move the world from off his steadfast hinge, > > And boistrous battle make, each other to avenge. > > I prefer the version set to music by the great Henry Purcell. The one by Jeremiah Clarke? -- Michael Press   Date: 04 Jun 2007 18:59:36 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 3, 9:49 pm, A Muzi of Yellow Jersey wrote: > > datakoll aka gene wrote: > >> problem is: changing the rear tire. > >> shaft drive changing is negative. > >> chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. > >> shaft drive's are negative. > >> chain covers are socially negative due to? > >> style or blind shifting? > >> the accounting department? > >> shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive > >> users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. > Nexus7 wrote: > > Could you post in English, not Jabberwocky? > > What? And skip Gene's gifts to us? It takes considerable talent to deliberately mangle the English language the way gene does. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful   Date: 04 Jun 2007 18:56:32 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 3, 2:12 am, Garry Lee wrote: > On Jun 3, 2:37 am, datakoll wrote: > > > problem is: changing the rear tire. > > shaft drive changing is negative. > > > chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. > > shaft drive's are negative. > > > chain covers are socially negative due to? > > style or blind shifting? > > the accounting department? > > > shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive > > users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. > > I cannot understand what the above means. Is it meant to mean > anything? Garry Lee must not have a copy of the "gene to English" dictionary. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful   Date: 04 Jun 2007 18:54:33 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 4, 3:39 pm, Nexus7 wrote: > ... > I suggest jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org stop buying his socket > extensions from the dollar store. The modulus of elasticity of steel does not change significantly with carbon or alloy content, or with heat treatment or work hardening. Therefore, with equal diameters, for a given torque, a Snap-On socket extension will exhibit the same degree of torsional deformation as a made in (People's Republic of) China, cheap steel socket extension sold at Sprawl-Mart, as long as deformation is kept in the elastic range [1]. [1] The higher quality extension would be expected to have considerably higher yield strength. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful     Date: 05 Jun 2007 19:33:46 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Drive shaft Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 4, 3:39 pm, Nexus7 wrote: >> ... >> I suggest jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org stop buying his socket >> extensions from the dollar store. > > The modulus of elasticity of steel does not change significantly with > carbon or alloy content, or with heat treatment or work hardening. > Therefore, with equal diameters, for a given torque, a Snap-On socket > extension will exhibit the same degree of torsional deformation as a > made in (People's Republic of) China, cheap steel socket extension > sold at Sprawl-Mart, as long as deformation is kept in the elastic > range [1]. > > [1] The higher quality extension would be expected to have > considerably higher yield strength. to clarify, the elastic range on the higher quality material is considerably greater, and it exhibits ductility on failure. cheapo carbon steels can yield low and/or be brittle in failure. most undesirable.   Date: 04 Jun 2007 15:17:53 From: Nexus7 Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 4, 4:25 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu > wrote: > Nexus7 wrote: > > I think the 2.4 degrees in that posting is too pessimistic. > > Using the formula for deflection, > > 584 LT / (GD^^4) > > G =3D 80 GPa (steel) shear modulus > > We get a deflection of 0.048 degrees. A non-issue. > 1. The 120lb-ft (165 Nm) at the shaft is, IMO, a bad starting point. See > the forementioned thread for my assumption: the gear ratio between > cranks and the drive shaft is about 2.5. And you can even see the > reasoning behind that assumption. OK. I was going by the number mentioned in the posting, but this is a better number. > 2. Using your numbers and SI units, I get 48=B0. Am I using the wrong > units with your factor of 584? The formula needs the shear modulus in MPa, so that accounts for that. > 3. I used a diameter of 0.5" (12.7 mm). Since torsional stiffness is > related to the fourth power of diameter, these differences account for a > factor of 2.6 difference in our calculations. Your deflection be smaller with a larger diameter then, although the increased torque would offset that (in this case).     Date: 04 Jun 2007 17:53:48 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:17:53 -0700, Nexus7 <ac25kV@yahoo.com > wrote: >On Jun 4, 4:25 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu> wrote: >> Nexus7 wrote: >> > I think the 2.4 degrees in that posting is too pessimistic. >> > Using the formula for deflection, >> > 584 LT / (GD^^4) >> > G = 80 GPa (steel) shear modulus >> > We get a deflection of 0.048 degrees. A non-issue. > >> 1. The 120lb-ft (165 Nm) at the shaft is, IMO, a bad starting point. See >> the forementioned thread for my assumption: the gear ratio between >> cranks and the drive shaft is about 2.5. And you can even see the >> reasoning behind that assumption. > >OK. I was going by the number mentioned in the posting, but this is a >better number. > >> 2. Using your numbers and SI units, I get 48°. Am I using the wrong >> units with your factor of 584? > >The formula needs the shear modulus in MPa, so that accounts for that. > >> 3. I used a diameter of 0.5" (12.7 mm). Since torsional stiffness is >> related to the fourth power of diameter, these differences account for a >> factor of 2.6 difference in our calculations. > >Your deflection be smaller with a larger diameter then, although the >increased torque would offset that (in this case). Dear Dave & Nex, In any case, we have yet to hear from anyone who has actually ridden any shaft drive bike and noticed a springy transmission or suffered from the alleged fragility. Most sources that discuss the 1890's shaft drive bikes mention power losses and rear-wheel-removal as the problems. None that I've seen mention springiness or mechanical failure--those seem to be modern notions. A practical approach would be to lock the brakes on a modern shaft drive bike, stand on a level pedal, and see how far it drops--being sure to repeat the experiment with a modern chain-drive bike for comparison. Alas, I see recumbents now and then, and I've finally spotted an adult tricycle, but so far I haven't seen a shaft-drive bike in the wild and suspect that I'd buy a stylish replica highwheeler before I'd buy an understated modern shaft-drive. I do wonder what the objection to the alleged springiness is. It seems to me that a wound-up steel shaft should untwist with remarkably little overall power loss each time the rider's foot reaches the bottom of the pedal cycle, in much the same fashion that flexing frames are supposed to spring back. Here's a link to the previous thread: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/160fdec69cb96c03/22caf64dfefd5c10?lnk=gst&q=carl+major+taylor&rnum=1#22caf64dfefd5c10 This modern review of a shaft drive bike may say more about perceptions that reality.: http://www.velovision.co.uk/mag/issue10/shaftdrive.pdf The reviewer noticed sluggishness, but that may have been his expectations. He adds that most people who rode the test shaft drive didn't even notice that it was a shaft drive, which may indicate that he has a really clueless crowd of friends. The reviewer does state " . . . nor was there any disconcerting 'slop' or flexibility--the bike was responsive enough. Stressing the drive as much as I could by hard acceleration and climbing out of the saddle provoked no ill-effects." I take that passage to mean that he noticed no springiness. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 05 Jun 2007 03:57:56 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft Carl Fogel writes: > In any case, we have yet to hear from anyone who has actually ridden > any shaft drive bike and noticed a springy transmission or suffered > from the alleged fragility. I haven't ridden one but I got on one in Europe and tested its torsion bar action by bouncing on the downward pedal in the parking lot. I convinced myself that this is a definite weakness, one that could lead to failure, if not the shaft, then the bevel gears. One of the reasons why car manufacturers do not use torsion bar suspension, like the ones I designed at Porsche, is that they require large torsional anchors at both ends, ones that convert torsion to linear force. This costs weight in levers and heavy bearings and money. > Most sources that discuss the 1890's shaft drive bikes mention power > losses and rear-wheel-removal as the problems. None that I've seen > mention springiness or mechanical failure--those seem to be modern > notions. I'm not moved by the power loss concept, but wheel removal is a definite headache. > A practical approach would be to lock the brakes on a modern shaft > drive bike, stand on a level pedal, and see how far it drops--being > sure to repeat the experiment with a modern chain-drive bike for > comparison. On a chain drive bicycle the pedal movement is almost entirely lateral BB swing which, with a Q-factor, turns into vertical motion. This is always a sticky point in bicycle reviews by people not clear on the concepts. > Alas, I see recumbents now and then, and I've finally spotted an > adult tricycle, but so far I haven't seen a shaft-drive bike in the > wild and suspect that I'd buy a stylish replica high wheeler before > I'd buy an understated modern shaft-drive. That they exist and that they don't command any significant market share is an indication of design flaws, be they mechanical, economic or a pain to change a flat tire. > I do wonder what the objection to the alleged springiness is. It > seems to me that a wound-up steel shaft should untwist with > remarkably little overall power loss each time the rider's foot > reaches the bottom of the pedal cycle, in much the same fashion that > flexing frames are supposed to spring back. > Here's a link to the previous thread: http://tinyurl.com/2efm3q > This modern review of a shaft drive bike may say more about > perceptions that reality.: http://www.velovision.co.uk/mag/issue10/shaftdrive.pdf > The reviewer noticed sluggishness, but that may have been his > expectations. He adds that most people who rode the test shaft > drive didn't even notice that it was a shaft drive, which may > indicate that he has a really clueless crowd of friends. > The reviewer does state "... nor was there any disconcerting 'slop' > or flexibility--the bike was responsive enough. Stressing the drive > as much as I could by hard acceleration and climbing out of the > saddle provoked no ill-effects." That was not my experience. > I take that passage to mean that he noticed no springiness. Jobst Brandt         Date: 04 Jun 2007 23:03:40 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On 05 Jun 2007 03:57:56 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Carl Fogel writes: > >> In any case, we have yet to hear from anyone who has actually ridden >> any shaft drive bike and noticed a springy transmission or suffered >> from the alleged fragility. > >I haven't ridden one but I got on one in Europe and tested its torsion >bar action by bouncing on the downward pedal in the parking lot. I >convinced myself that this is a definite weakness, one that could lead >to failure, if not the shaft, then the bevel gears. [snip] Dear Jobst, I have no doubt that you convinced yourself of what you'd already decided you would find. But nobody else who actually rides shaft drive bikes seems to mention this springiness. Similarly, nobody else back in the 1880's seems to mention broken highwheeler spokes causing headers and suggesting tying and soldering to prevent it. You _could_ be right. For example, some shaft drive bikes might have significantly thinner and weaker shafts. But there seems to be a fair amount of evidence against your position, and darned little general support. Dave Van Tol's calculations suggest that contemporary shaft drive reviews are correct--no noticeable twistiness. Similarly, I know of no complaints from actual riders about shaft drive bicycles being fragile. I can't find pictures of broken shaft drive gears, but I can find pictures of old ones showing no broken teeth. Here are a few examples: http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/1718.htm http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/pic/?o=1gci&pic_id=120248&v=EK&size=large http://www.europacycle.com/DSCF0027.JPG http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/1631.htm http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/1604.htm http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1903tri1.htm I wonder what you'd find if you "bounced" on the pedals of two bikes in a parking lot, one shaft drive and one chain--particularly if you were blindfolded. Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 04 Jun 2007 20:39:06 From: Nexus7 Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 4, 3:16 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu > wrote: > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > > Dave Vt? writes: > > >>> From the bevel gear size and shaft diameter, I believe the units > >>> shown here: > > > http://www.sussex.com.tw/se2.htm > > http://www.showandgo.com.au/ebikes/shaft.htm?shaft_bf.htm~mainFrame > > >>> have both springiness from drive shaft twist and the gears would > >>> not survive steep climbs. > > >> Can you share your calculations? > > > 1:1 ratio from pedals to shaft =3D 120 ft-lb torque. My solid 10" > > socket extension with a similar sized shaft has substantial twist for > > tight bolts and it is shorter than the shafts shown. From this > > experience, I think my estimate of elasticity is in the right > > magnitude. I'm using a rider standing on the pedal, pulling up with > > the other as one can do on hills. > > > How about your perspective on this? > > > Jobst Brandt > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/16... > > As I said upthread, see message 154 of that discussion for the > conclusion. Preceding messages give details on the calculations. > > In that thread, we found that a heavy rider stomping on the pedal at a > standstill should cause the driveshaft to twist a wee bit. The crank > would rotate less than 0.5=B0 about the bottom bracket due to the twist in > the driveshaft. > > The assumptions were a little different... 0.5" diameter shaft (is your > socket extension this large?), 14" long, 2.5:1 ratio from crank to shaft > (not the 1:1 that you assume). > > -- > Dave > dvt at psu dot edu > > Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body > and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to > get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than > circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and > novelist (1811-1896) I think the 2.4 degrees in that posting is too pessimistic. 120 lb-ft is 165 Nm. Using the formula for deflection, 584 LT / (GD^^4) and values, L =3D 400 mm length of drive shaft T =3D 165 Nm Posited in this thread G =3D 80 GPa (steel) shear modulus D =3D 10 mm (solid) shaft diameter We get a deflection of 0.048 degrees. A non-issue. I suggest jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org stop buying his socket extensions from the dollar store.     Date: 05 Jun 2007 13:18:28 From: dvt Subject: Re: Drive shaft Nexus7 wrote: > On Jun 4, 3:16 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu> wrote: >> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >>> Dave Vt? writes: >>>>> From the bevel gear size and shaft diameter, I believe the units >>>>> shown here: >>> http://www.sussex.com.tw/se2.htm >>> http://www.showandgo.com.au/ebikes/shaft.htm?shaft_bf.htm~mainFrame >>>>> have both springiness from drive shaft twist and the gears would >>>>> not survive steep climbs. >>>> Can you share your calculations? >>> 1:1 ratio from pedals to shaft = 120 ft-lb torque. My solid 10" >>> socket extension with a similar sized shaft has substantial twist for >>> tight bolts and it is shorter than the shafts shown. From this >>> experience, I think my estimate of elasticity is in the right >>> magnitude. I'm using a rider standing on the pedal, pulling up with >>> the other as one can do on hills. >>> How about your perspective on this? >>> Jobst Brandt >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/16... >> >> As I said upthread, see message 154 of that discussion for the >> conclusion. Preceding messages give details on the calculations. >> >> In that thread, we found that a heavy rider stomping on the pedal at a >> standstill should cause the driveshaft to twist a wee bit. The crank >> would rotate less than 0.5° about the bottom bracket due to the twist in >> the driveshaft. >> >> The assumptions were a little different... 0.5" diameter shaft (is your >> socket extension this large?), 14" long, 2.5:1 ratio from crank to shaft >> (not the 1:1 that you assume). >> >> -- >> Dave >> dvt at psu dot edu >> >> Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body >> and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to >> get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than >> circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and >> novelist (1811-1896) > > > I think the 2.4 degrees in that posting is too pessimistic. > > 120 lb-ft is 165 Nm. > Using the formula for deflection, > > 584 LT / (GD^^4) > > and values, > > L = 400 mm length of drive shaft > T = 165 Nm Posited in this thread > G = 80 GPa (steel) shear modulus > D = 10 mm (solid) shaft diameter > > We get a deflection of 0.048 degrees. A non-issue. Another question... does your formula give a result in radians rather than degrees? -- Dave dvt at psu dot edu Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and novelist (1811-1896)     Date: 04 Jun 2007 17:25:43 From: dvt Subject: Re: Drive shaft Nexus7 wrote: >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/16... >> >> As I said upthread, see message 154 of that discussion for the >> conclusion. Preceding messages give details on the calculations. > I think the 2.4 degrees in that posting is too pessimistic. > > 120 lb-ft is 165 Nm. > Using the formula for deflection, > > 584 LT / (GD^^4) > > and values, > > L = 400 mm length of drive shaft > T = 165 Nm Posited in this thread > G = 80 GPa (steel) shear modulus > D = 10 mm (solid) shaft diameter > > We get a deflection of 0.048 degrees. A non-issue. 1. The 120lb-ft (165 Nm) at the shaft is, IMO, a bad starting point. See the forementioned thread for my assumption: the gear ratio between cranks and the drive shaft is about 2.5. And you can even see the reasoning behind that assumption. 2. Using your numbers and SI units, I get 48°. Am I using the wrong units with your factor of 584? 3. I used a diameter of 0.5" (12.7 mm). Since torsional stiffness is related to the fourth power of diameter, these differences account for a factor of 2.6 difference in our calculations. There are differences in your assumed length and modulus, but they're minor compared to the three things I listed above. -- Dave dvt at psu dot edu Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and novelist (1811-1896)       Date: 12 Jun 2007 18:01:41 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 12, 11:29 am, "jim beam" wrote: > ... > i'm with you [Jobst Brandt] 100% on this.... HELL FREEZES OVER!!! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful         Date: 15 Jun 2007 22:45:18 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <1181696501.814376.130630@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com > , Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jun 12, 11:29 am, "jim beam" wrote: > > ... > > i'm with you [Jobst Brandt] 100% on this.... > > HELL FREEZES OVER!!! Film at eleven. -- Michael Press       Date: 12 Jun 2007 02:30:50 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 10, 5:27 pm, Bill Baka wrote: > ... > They totally murdered the Hum-Vee line with the H-2. It's a damned Chevy > pick up chassis with fake Hummer bodywork. Look under an H-2 and you > will see a straight rear axle and not the Hum-Vee's high clearance > suspension. They have been turned into useless yuppie toy trucks. Well, duh! 90+% of street legal four-wheel-drive vehicles are never driven off-road. The current trend is unit-body station wagons made to look like trucks. Some SUV's are even two-wheel-drive. Sort of like buying an expensive dual-suspension ATB to carry around on said SUV and to ride the two blocks to the coffee shop. [Yawn] -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful   Date: 04 Jun 2007 09:12:15 From: Sheldon Brown Subject: Re: Drive shaft Someone who is afraid to reveal his or her secret identity wrote: > No, the point being made is that all shift drive bikes have enclosed > drive-trains, not all chain ones do, so that is a valid advantage for > the shaft-drive. That's one way to look at it. My viewpoint is that bikes with enclosed drive trains come in two varieties: chain drive or shaft drive. My contention is that if you need/want a bike with an enclosed drive train, chain drive is the superior option. > > >None that have derailleurs. > > > OK here's that red herring again! Bringing up derailers in this > > context is pure sophistry. > > You've got it into your head that this isn't a valid comparison, Right. > when > it is because (here in Chicago, anyway) most non-shaft-drive bikes do > have derailleurs and so can't have an enclosed drive-train. That's not relevant to the issue of shaft vs chain drive. I'm sure that there are FAR more more derailerless bikes in Chicago than there are shaft drive bikes. > > > Obsolete? > > > For what use? Shaft-drives make reliable utility and commuter bikes, > > They offer no practical benefit to offset their reduced efficiency. > > The paltry 2-4% penalty of a shaft-drive is not noticed in commuter, > utility, and recreational use, I find that statement highly dubious. > and offers superior reliability and durability. That's also dubious. In addition, shaft drive makes simple repairs much harder, and precludes customizing the gearing to suit the rider. Sheldon "Not Ready To Shaft My Customers" Brown +--------------------------------------------------+   Date: 04 Jun 2007 03:47:26 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 3, 10:49 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > > datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> problem is: changing the rear tire. > >> shaft drive changing is negative. > >> chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. > >> shaft drive's are negative. > >> chain covers are socially negative due to? > >> style or blind shifting? > >> the accounting department? > >> shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive > >> users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. > Nexus7 wrote: > > Could you post in English, not Jabberwocky? > > What? And skip Gene's gifts to us? > -- > Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 THE ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT SPEAKS!   Date: 04 Jun 2007 03:46:03 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Nexus7 <ac2...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jun 2, 8:37 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > problem is: changing the rear tire. > > shaft drive changing is negative. > > > chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. > > shaft drive's are negative. > > > chain covers are socially negative due to? > > style or blind shifting? > > the accounting department? > > > shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive > > users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. > > Could you post in English, not Jabberwocky? NO GO JUMP! READ THE FAIRY QUEEN.     Date: 04 Jun 2007 07:31:50 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <1180928763.832273.253230@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com > , datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Nexus7 <ac2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 2, 8:37 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > problem is: changing the rear tire. > > > shaft drive changing is negative. > > > > > chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. > > > shaft drive's are negative. > > > > > chain covers are socially negative due to? > > > style or blind shifting? > > > the accounting department? > > > > > shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive > > > users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. > > > > Could you post in English, not Jabberwocky? > > NO GO JUMP! READ THE FAIRY QUEEN. Did you misspell DAIRY QUEEN or Fairie Queene? He cried as raging seas are wont to roar When wintry storm his wrathful wreck does threat: The rolling billows beat the ragged shore As they the earth would shoulder from her seat, And greedy gulf does gape as he would eat His neighbor element in his revenge; Then gin the blustering bretheren boldly threat To move the world from off his steadfast hinge, And boistrous battle make, each other to avenge. -- Michael Press   Date: 04 Jun 2007 01:38:31 From: Nexus7 Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 2, 3:35 pm, Sheldon Brown <CaptB...@sheldonbrown.com > wrote: > Nexus7 wrote: > > I've used a chain case. They are finicky about being fitted right. > > They constantly rub against chain and the cranks. > > Not if they're "fitted right." The numbers show that even of fitted right, full chain cases go out of alignment soon, and interfere with the chain, sprocket, etc. I've observed thousands of chain cases, full, half, quarter, etc. more than you've seen in your lifetime, in a country where there are thousands of bicycles on the streets in any city at any given time. Chain cases are an imperfect solution, they have to be tinkered with constantly. If you're doing any serious utility biking, that is. > > They accumulate > > dust, grime, and muddy rain water and smear your pants anyway. > > The one on my old Raleigh Sports does none of those things. Well then, you have the perfect bike then! Unfortunately, that is not the common experience with cases. > > And how many bikes have full chain cases? > > Lots more than have shaft drive! It's true that they're rare in the > U.S.A., but most bikes in the Netherlands have them. No, the point being made is that all shift drive bikes have enclosed drive-trains, not all chain ones do, so that is a valid advantage for the shaft-drive. > >None that have derailleurs. > > OK here's that red herring again! Bringing up derailers in this > context is pure sophistry. You've got it into your head that this isn't a valid comparison, when it is because (here in Chicago, anyway) most non-shaft-drive bikes do have derailleurs and so can't have an enclosed drive-train. > > How many shaft-drive bikes have enclosed shafts? All of them. > > How many bikes with chain cases have chain cases? All of them. So > what? It was unseemly of you to edit my post and separate two sentences and then attack the second one out of context with this babble. > > Obsolete? > > For what use? Shaft-drives make reliable utility and commuter bikes, > They offer no practical benefit to offset their reduced efficiency. The paltry 2-4% penalty of a shaft-drive is not noticed in commuter, utility, and recreational use, and offers superior reliability and durability.     Date: 06 Jun 2007 13:09:20 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:38:31 +0000, Nexus7 wrote: > The paltry 2-4% penalty of a shaft-drive is not noticed in commuter, > utility, and recreational use, and offers superior reliability and > durability. It can't be just 2-4%. This is a fact of 90 degree gear drives. Where are you getting your figures from? Matt O.   Date: 04 Jun 2007 01:17:35 From: Nexus7 Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 2, 8:37 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote: > problem is: changing the rear tire. > shaft drive changing is negative. > > chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. > shaft drive's are negative. > > chain covers are socially negative due to? > style or blind shifting? > the accounting department? > > shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive > users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. Could you post in English, not Jabberwocky?     Date: 03 Jun 2007 21:49:22 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Drive shaft > datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> problem is: changing the rear tire. >> shaft drive changing is negative. >> chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. >> shaft drive's are negative. >> chain covers are socially negative due to? >> style or blind shifting? >> the accounting department? >> shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive >> users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. Nexus7 wrote: > Could you post in English, not Jabberwocky? What? And skip Gene's gifts to us? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971     Date: 03 Jun 2007 18:30:39 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Drive shaft Nexus7 wrote: > On Jun 2, 8:37 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> problem is: changing the rear tire. >> shaft drive changing is negative. >> >> chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. >> shaft drive's are negative. >> >> chain covers are socially negative due to? >> style or blind shifting? >> the accounting department? >> >> shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive >> users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. > > Could you post in English, not Jabberwocky? Whaddya, new?   Date: 03 Jun 2007 13:53:22 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Drive shaft > I cannot understand what the above means. Is it meant to mean > anything? the ability to add and subtract ideas is a basic standard at the 3rd grade level if you can you go on if you can't you're retarded     Date: 04 Jun 2007 07:14:17 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <1180878802.192068.157340@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com > , datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote: > > I cannot understand what the above means. Is it meant to mean > > anything? > > the ability to add and subtract ideas is a basic standard at the 3rd > grade level > if you can you go on > if you can't you're retarded I do not understand what you are saying. -- Michael Press   Date: 03 Jun 2007 00:12:35 From: Garry Lee Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 3, 2:37 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote: > problem is: changing the rear tire. > shaft drive changing is negative. > > chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. > shaft drive's are negative. > > chain covers are socially negative due to? > style or blind shifting? > the accounting department? > > shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive > users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives. I cannot understand what the above means. Is it meant to mean anything?   Date: 03 Jun 2007 02:14:40 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Drive shaft offer an alternative. WANT AN ENCLOSED CHAIN? gotta fabricate one. try a rolled garbage bag as tire brush/cluster cover and work into a plexi/carbonate wrap around the front rear or assembly of 5 gallon oil jugs. I have an invention in archives-chain guard $2-eliminates 30-40% fall in.     Date: 03 Jun 2007 05:21:09 From: Steve Gravrock Subject: Re: Drive shaft On 2007-06-03, datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote: > offer an alternative. > > WANT AN ENCLOSED CHAIN? gotta fabricate one. try a rolled garbage bag > as tire brush/cluster cover and work into a plexi/carbonate wrap > around the front rear or assembly of 5 gallon oil jugs. > I have an invention in archives-chain guard $2-eliminates 30-40% fall > in. I can think of no better way to guarantee that my hypothetical prospective buyer friend will buy a shaft drive bike than to tell them that the alternative is to fabricate their own chaincase.   Date: 03 Jun 2007 01:43:12 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Drive shaft On May 27, 1:08 am, "Philip Lee" <n...@try.to > wrote: > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:02:56 -0500, catzz66 > > <catz...@threeletterservice.com> wrote: > > >>Dieter Britz wrote: > >>> A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that > >>> had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor > >>> bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have > >>> to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at > >>> each turn. > >>> What is the story? > > >>Aren't most motorbikes (motorcycles) still belt drive or chain drive? > > > Dear C, > > > Almost all off-road motorcycles still use chains. > > > Over the last 30 years, the trend in street motorcycles is toward > > shaft drive. > > > Google for motorcycle (to weed out ATVs), names like Honda, Yamaha, > > Kawasaki, and Suzuki, and shaft drive. > > > For example: > >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=motorcycle+yamaha... > > > In contrast, a bicycle with a shaft drive is a curiosity piece, which > > is why we like to squabble about them on RBT. > > > Cheers, > > > Carl Fogel > > Carl, > > A cursory check shows that the majority of *current* bikes out there are > indeed still shaft and chain driven. This includes virtually all sportbikes > and all non-military Harleys. BMW, among others, stands out as the main > user of shaft drives in addition to more distance-oriented bikes for less > maintenance, and current larger-bore cruisers. > > -- > Phil- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - the trans Sahara rally BMW is chain drive!!   Date: 03 Jun 2007 01:37:08 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Drive shaft problem is: changing the rear tire. shaft drive changing is negative. chain technology is positive as energy and cost effective. shaft drive's are negative. chain covers are socially negative due to? style or blind shifting? the accounting department? shafts are manufactured but RBT is unable to find a many positive users comments, verifieable positive comments. search RBT archives.   Date: 02 Jun 2007 13:35:05 From: Sheldon Brown Subject: Re: Drive shaft I wrote: > > Purveyors of shaft drive bikes often use misleading arguments to > > promote their products. An anonymous poster demurred: > If anything, it is the arguments made against shaft-drive on your web > page that are misleading. > > "All the benefits of shaft-drive can be obtained with a chain case?" > > I've used a chain case. They are finicky about being fitted right. > They constantly rub against chain and the cranks. Not if they're "fitted right." > They accumulate > dust, grime, and muddy rain water and smear your pants anyway. The one on my old Raleigh Sports does none of those things. > And how many bikes have full chain cases? Lots more than have shaft drive! It's true that they're rare in the U.S.A., but most bikes in the Netherlands have them. >None that have derailleurs. OK here's that red herring again! Bringing up derailers in this context is pure sophistry. > How many shaft-drive bikes have enclosed shafts? All of them. How many bikes with chain cases have chain cases? All of them. So what? > Obsolete? > > For what use? Shaft-drives make reliable utility and commuter bikes, > and any other use where the reduced efficiency (compared to an aligned > and lubricated chain) isn't noticeable. They offer no practical benefit to offset their reduced efficiency. Sheldon "Without Redeeming Social Importance" Brown +----------------------------------------+     Date: 03 Jun 2007 01:44:58 From: Steve Gravrock Subject: Re: Drive shaft On 2007-06-02, Sheldon Brown <CaptBike@sheldonbrown.com > wrote: >> And how many bikes have full chain cases? > > Lots more than have shaft drive! It's true that they're rare in the > U.S.A., but most bikes in the Netherlands have them. That may be the crux of the argument, for anyone in the US who wants an enclosed drivetrain. A quick google found me somebody who would sell a shaft drive bike mail-order, but I had no such luck when it came to bikes with full chaincases. I couldn't find a single example available in the US. I've been told that Breezer has a model with a full chaincase, but it's not listed on their website. In any case Breezer neither sells mail-order nor has a dealer within a full day's round trip of me. Now suppose I've seen an advertisement for a shaft-drive bike, and I'm sold on the idea of an enclosed drivetrain. Even if I know that a full chaincase is a better solution, I run up against the minor obstacle that no one will sell me such a bike. I agree with you that shaft drive is a loser compared to enclosed chain drive, but a bike that somebody can't get is no use at all. If somebody I knew was convinced that they wanted an enclosed drivetrain, I'd be hard-pressed to talk them out of buying a shaft drive bike simply because I couldn't offer an alternative.       Date: 09 Jun 2007 06:41:21 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 9, 2:16 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote: > ... > They [Corvettes] also do very well in quite a number of racing categories, though > such arguments are always muddied by the fact that with enough > modification and accommodating rules, lots of cars turn into successful > racers. If the old rules that matched cars in classes for racing by engine displacement were reinstalled, the Corvette (or any car with a pushrod engine) would not be competitive. So GM gets 505 hp from a 7.0L engine. Scale up the engine of the Honda S2000 to 7.0L, and the result would be 840 hp. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful         Date: 12 Jun 2007 03:08:02 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 11, 1:11 pm, Bill Baka wrote: > R Brickston wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:55:45 -0700, Bill Baka wrote: > >> That could be because Corvettes are cop magnets. > >> I know my bright red Mustang GT 5.0 was. A Sacramento cop followed me > >> through 4 freeway changes downtown once and I finally pulled over, > >> rolled down my window, and yelled at him "If you want a good look he it > >> is, so you can stop following me.". > >> He just looked like I deprived him of a ticket and sped away. > >> It was a pain driving at exactly 55 MPH with him on my tail though. > >> Bill Baka > > > Fantasy Land... > > Ok, moronic wonder boy. Try driving a bright red performance car in > front of a cop just dying to give out a ticket and see how long he > follows you. 4 freeway changes and ten miles behind me was not just a > coincidence. > It's hardly fantasy land to drive at exactly the speed limit with a cop > so obviously on your tail. > Your piss ant brain is malfunctioning again. I had the same thing happen with a yellow-green MG, where I was followed most of the way across Cass County Illinois by a sheriff's deputy. In retrospect it was humorous, since the MG had about 55 hp and a top speed barely over 80 mph. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful           Date: 13 Jun 2007 05:56:21 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 11, 1:11 pm, Bill Baka wrote: >> R Brickston wrote: >>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:55:45 -0700, Bill Baka wrote: >>>> That could be because Corvettes are cop magnets. >>>> I know my bright red Mustang GT 5.0 was. A Sacramento cop followed me >>>> through 4 freeway changes downtown once and I finally pulled over, >>>> rolled down my window, and yelled at him "If you want a good look he it >>>> is, so you can stop following me.". >>>> He just looked like I deprived him of a ticket and sped away. >>>> It was a pain driving at exactly 55 MPH with him on my tail though. >>>> Bill Baka >>> Fantasy Land... >> Ok, moronic wonder boy. Try driving a bright red performance car in >> front of a cop just dying to give out a ticket and see how long he >> follows you. 4 freeway changes and ten miles behind me was not just a >> coincidence. >> It's hardly fantasy land to drive at exactly the speed limit with a cop >> so obviously on your tail. >> Your piss ant brain is malfunctioning again. > > I had the same thing happen with a yellow-green MG, where I was > followed most of the way across Cass County Illinois by a sheriff's > deputy. In retrospect it was humorous, since the MG had about 55 hp > and a top speed barely over 80 mph. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > It happens with all sorts of cars, but the insult factor is that he thinks you are stupid enough not to look in the rear view mirror and realize that he is tailing you. As if you are going to break a law with a cop 30 feet behind you. The funny thing is that I could have probably got him in trouble for 'tailgating' me. Bill Baka         Date: 09 Jun 2007 20:30:30 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <1181396481.719357.34730@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jun 9, 2:16 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > ... > > They [Corvettes] also do very well in quite a number of racing categories, > > though > > such arguments are always muddied by the fact that with enough > > modification and accommodating rules, lots of cars turn into successful > > racers. > > If the old rules that matched cars in classes for racing by engine > displacement were reinstalled, the Corvette (or any car with a pushrod > engine) would not be competitive. So GM gets 505 hp from a 7.0L > engine. Scale up the engine of the Honda S2000 to 7.0L, and the result > would be 840 hp. Displacement rules are interesting for formula racing categories, but on the other hand, if displacement rules were reinstated, every race car would be a rotary (or they'd use the rule that the area occupied by the rotary's piston counts against its displacement...). And whither turbines? Engines rarely scale in any sensible way. There are model aircraft engines that would put your S2000 motor in the shade, specific-output-wise. A 7.0l "S2000" would have fourteen cylinders; Lamborghini's Murcielago had a 6.5l V12 that makes 640 horsepower. The 6.0l V12 in the Ferrari Enzo is also rated at 650 hp. I couldn't find any model airplane engine power output figures, but here are some rear-wheel horsepower figures for motorcycles, all normally aspirated: http://www.2fast4u.ca/horsepower_chart.html I'm not sure it has the highest specific output of any of the bikes there, but note the ZX-10R that produces 163 rear-wheel horsepower from a 1.0 l engine. That would scale to 1140 horsepower at 7 litres! Of course, it would also scale to 326 horsepower at the 2l displacement of your S2000, but as mentioned before, engines and their specific outputs rarely scale in any sensible way. The point really is that nobody buys a car by displacement. To a first order, cars are bought on cost, but that's confounded by a dozen other variables. For sports cars, dynamic performance, acceleration, aesthetics, and refinement (everything from leather seats to "doesn't try to kill the driver with lift-throttle oversteer") count a lot. The Corvette has a large-displacement but surprisingly simple engine, and it is a competitive sports car in areas of price and performance. It weighs about the same as some cars that have half the displacement. The engine package weights were hard for me to find, but here's a page that lists "dressed engine weights" of a bit under 500 pounds for 2001-model Corvette V8s. I believe the current engines are notably lighter. I think "Dressed" means with all accessories bolted to the engine (alternator, headers, water pump...) but I don't think it includes the radiator or other off-the-block bits. This Mazda RX-8-oriented thread suggests that the normally aspirated rotary currently powering that car weighs about 260 pounds. It's probably the lightest engine in any widely available sports car: http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=797 They guess the S2000 engine weighs about 330 pounds. In other words, either engine's weight-to-power ratio compared to the LS V8s is pathetic. Something near 1.5 pounds per horsepower, while the LS7 is cleanly below the 1 pound-per horsepower mark. But it's worth noting that engine weights don't scale with ease any more than specific outputs do... ObBike: human power output depends on how long we are trying to go for, but the 1-hour-max-power rate is a pretty useful analogue for the kind of performances we can keep going for a while. http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/hpv/hpv.html http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/hpv/hupgraph.gif I've extracted the graph from the web page because the background pawprints were giving me fits. The graph says humans can put out somewhere between 0.3 and 0.45 hp for an hour on a bicycle, depending on whether they are merely healthy or elite athletes. We can put out much, much more power than that for time frames of less than a minute or so. Combined with a nice machine like the bike, humans are the most efficient biological entities on the planet: we can go farther with less energy than any other self-powered creature. And if you're wondering about the utility of these sports cars we're discussing, well, I invite you to count the number of sports cars passed by the bike in this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=dj1Ifq9Tfas Z4, Mustang, two motorcycles, 3-series convertible...I don't see a lot of places where 505 hp would have helped. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos           Date: 10 Jun 2007 02:59:57 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Ryan Cousineau wrote: > In article <1181396481.719357.34730@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 9, 2:16 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> ... >>> They [Corvettes] also do very well in quite a number of racing categories, >>> though >>> such arguments are always muddied by the fact that with enough >>> modification and accommodating rules, lots of cars turn into successful >>> racers. >> If the old rules that matched cars in classes for racing by engine >> displacement were reinstalled, the Corvette (or any car with a pushrod >> engine) would not be competitive. So GM gets 505 hp from a 7.0L >> engine. Scale up the engine of the Honda S2000 to 7.0L, and the result >> would be 840 hp. > > Displacement rules are interesting for formula racing categories, but on > the other hand, if displacement rules were reinstated, every race car > would be a rotary (or they'd use the rule that the area occupied by the > rotary's piston counts against its displacement...). And whither > turbines? Mazda's rotaries in the 70's were almost unreal with a Holley 4 barrel and ignoring the RPM suggested red line. I knew a guy back in 1977 who raced his in the quarter mile and got well over 100 MPH. As for the turbine, I believe it was Andy Granatelli who used a turbine at Indy back in the 60's and got banned because he wiped the bricks with the piston crowd. > > Engines rarely scale in any sensible way. There are model aircraft > engines that would put your S2000 motor in the shade, > specific-output-wise. A 7.0l "S2000" would have fourteen cylinders; > Lamborghini's Murcielago had a 6.5l V12 that makes 640 horsepower. The > 6.0l V12 in the Ferrari Enzo is also rated at 650 hp. American V-8's are generally limited to 6,000 RPM for their own good, as in not blowing up, but racers can modify them up to around 9,000 RPM and 5,000 HP with Nitro and a blower. Of course they get a rebuild every few passes down the quarter mile, but if that's what it takes. Some Honda's were said to have run at over 20,000 RPM when they were experimenting. > > I couldn't find any model airplane engine power output figures, but here > are some rear-wheel horsepower figures for motorcycles, all normally > aspirated: > > http://www.2fast4u.ca/horsepower_chart.html All those are late model 4 strokes and the 163 HP probably comes at about 12,000 RPM. My 70's era Kawasaki 2 stroke, 3 cylinder 750cc had an official red line of 7,500 RPM but the race model just started there and pulled hard to over 12,000 RPM. It would have gone more but I didn't want that kind of explosion between my legs. I don't know if there ever was an official HP mentioned for those race modded bikes, but I did get sideways on throttle at 135 MPH in 4th gear just before shifting to 4th. That really got my attention. I can say from experience that anything over about 70 HP on a bike is way too much to be on the street and available to any kid with the money. > > I'm not sure it has the highest specific output of any of the bikes > there, but note the ZX-10R that produces 163 rear-wheel horsepower from > a 1.0 l engine. That would scale to 1140 horsepower at 7 litres! Of > course, it would also scale to 326 horsepower at the 2l displacement of > your S2000, but as mentioned before, engines and their specific outputs > rarely scale in any sensible way. > > The point really is that nobody buys a car by displacement. To a first > order, cars are bought on cost, but that's confounded by a dozen other > variables. For sports cars, dynamic performance, acceleration, > aesthetics, and refinement (everything from leather seats to "doesn't > try to kill the driver with lift-throttle oversteer") count a lot. In theory a Corvette 'could' get over 35 MPG if there was a high enough gear to minimize piston loss, but do ya think Detroit cares??? A 180 MPH car that also got 35 MPG would be a hot ticket. > > The Corvette has a large-displacement but surprisingly simple engine, > and it is a competitive sports car in areas of price and performance. It > weighs about the same as some cars that have half the displacement. Again, if I recall correctly, most of the GM blocks in use up to 400 CI are based on the 1955 Chevy V-8 and most parts interchange. The big blocks were a whole 'nother animal, and I never could figure out why there was a 454 and a 455 from the same company (GM). > > The engine package weights were hard for me to find, but here's a page > that lists "dressed engine weights" of a bit under 500 pounds for > 2001-model Corvette V8s. I believe the current engines are notably > lighter. I think "Dressed" means with all accessories bolted to the > engine (alternator, headers, water pump...) but I don't think it > includes the radiator or other off-the-block bits. I suspect they are using aluminum with steel cylinder liners to get that weight. Again, just a hunch, for the pricey toys. The really high tech guys go to not only electric fans but also electric after market water pumps for good idle cooling. > > This Mazda RX-8-oriented thread suggests that the normally aspirated > rotary currently powering that car weighs about 260 pounds. It's > probably the lightest engine in any widely available sports car: > > http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=797 I've been under the hood of the early 70's one that my acquaintance raced and the engine looked kind of lonely in there, it was so small. > > They guess the S2000 engine weighs about 330 pounds. In other words, > either engine's weight-to-power ratio compared to the LS V8s is > pathetic. Something near 1.5 pounds per horsepower, while the LS7 is > cleanly below the 1 pound-per horsepower mark. But it's worth noting > that engine weights don't scale with ease any more than specific outputs > do... Some model airplane engines do well over 20,000 RPM but they have maybe a half inch stroke so nothing blows up. Scale that up to a 400+ CI car motor and you would have engine parts all down the track. > > ObBike: human power output depends on how long we are trying to go for, > but the 1-hour-max-power rate is a pretty useful analogue for the kind > of performances we can keep going for a while. > > http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/hpv/hpv.html > http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/hpv/hupgraph.gif > > I've extracted the graph from the web page because the background > pawprints were giving me fits. The graph says humans can put out > somewhere between 0.3 and 0.45 hp for an hour on a bicycle, depending on > whether they are merely healthy or elite athletes. We can put out much, > much more power than that for time frames of less than a minute or so. It still doesn't hurt to be fit. I have 2 friends over 300 pounds and just walking up stairs they are putting out nearly twice the power I am. One guy is short and round and the other is 6'8" with a Grizzly bear build. I'm betting he could have bent the power meter when he was younger. The test also measures pedal power so it can't be equally applied to all sizes. My over sized friend makes a 1000cc motorcycle look like a mini bike when he gets on it, so you can guess what his opinion of bicycles is. > > Combined with a nice machine like the bike, humans are the most > efficient biological entities on the planet: we can go farther with less > energy than any other self-powered creature. As an individual entity that is true, but as a species the last 100 years has made most of us soft. > > And if you're wondering about the utility of these sports cars we're > discussing, well, I invite you to count the number of sports cars passed > by the bike in this video: > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=dj1Ifq9Tfas > > Z4, Mustang, two motorcycles, 3-series convertible...I don't see a lot > of places where 505 hp would have helped. > After watching that I conclude the guy has some really big brass ones on the saddle. That ride was a door event waiting to happen. Did you catch the ratty old Ford pickup that almost ran the rider into the concrete on the left hand turn? Whew. Why I hate riding in traffic. Bill Baka             Date: 10 Jun 2007 05:22:11 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <NOJai.13922$RX.6535@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > In article <1181396481.719357.34730@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 9, 2:16 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote: > >>> ... > >>> They [Corvettes] also do very well in quite a number of racing > >>> categories, > >>> though > >>> such arguments are always muddied by the fact that with enough > >>> modification and accommodating rules, lots of cars turn into successful > >>> racers. > In theory a Corvette 'could' get over 35 MPG if there was a high enough > gear to minimize piston loss, but do ya think Detroit cares??? > A 180 MPH car that also got 35 MPG would be a hot ticket. The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be to hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, then at 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's pretty loafy. > > The Corvette has a large-displacement but surprisingly simple engine, > > and it is a competitive sports car in areas of price and performance. It > > weighs about the same as some cars that have half the displacement. > > Again, if I recall correctly, most of the GM blocks in use up to 400 CI > are based on the 1955 Chevy V-8 and most parts interchange. The big > blocks were a whole 'nother animal, and I never could figure out why > there was a 454 and a 455 from the same company (GM). These days it's more complicated. the "Gen III" small-blocks and onwards are very different engines from what came before. Also, oddly, the 6 and 7 litre modern versions are effectively "small blocks," at least inasmuch as they're based on the same Gen III project that began as a 5.7l (350 ci) engine in 1997, designated "Generation IV" in these iterations. The 454 was a Chevy engine, and the 455 was an Olds. This sort of thing doesn't go on anymore, but the two engines were based on different blocks and had different intended uses. Probably not enough to justify two different designs... > > The engine package weights were hard for me to find, but here's a page > > that lists "dressed engine weights" of a bit under 500 pounds for > > 2001-model Corvette V8s. I believe the current engines are notably > > lighter. I think "Dressed" means with all accessories bolted to the > > engine (alternator, headers, water pump...) but I don't think it > > includes the radiator or other off-the-block bits. > > I suspect they are using aluminum with steel cylinder liners to get that > weight. Again, just a hunch, for the pricey toys. The really high tech > guys go to not only electric fans but also electric after market water > pumps for good idle cooling. Yes, these are Al blocks. > > ObBike: human power output depends on how long we are trying to go for, > > but the 1-hour-max-power rate is a pretty useful analogue for the kind > > of performances we can keep going for a while. > > And if you're wondering about the utility of these sports cars we're > > discussing, well, I invite you to count the number of sports cars passed > > by the bike in this video: > > > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=dj1Ifq9Tfas > > > > Z4, Mustang, two motorcycles, 3-series convertible...I don't see a lot > > of places where 505 hp would have helped. > > > After watching that I conclude the guy has some really big brass ones on > the saddle. That ride was a door event waiting to happen. Did you catch > the ratty old Ford pickup that almost ran the rider into the concrete on > the left hand turn? > Whew. Why I hate riding in traffic. Funny, this video was filmed on a route that passes about two blocks from my house; I know it well. I didn't think it looked scary at all. Note that the pickup (around 1:12 in the video) is not running him into the concrete in the left turn. that is a turn onto a little train-track overpass, and the lane is very narrow on the overpass itself. It would be perfectly normal to turn left from where the rider did, and just let the car beside you get ahead through the left turn, which in this case was the pickup. There's not really enough lane for a car and bike to be beside each other on that short (100') section. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos               Date: 10 Jun 2007 22:37:47 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Ryan Cousineau wrote: > In article <NOJai.13922$RX.6535@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> In article <1181396481.719357.34730@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >>> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 9, 2:16 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> They [Corvettes] also do very well in quite a number of racing >>>>> categories, >>>>> though >>>>> such arguments are always muddied by the fact that with enough >>>>> modification and accommodating rules, lots of cars turn into successful >>>>> racers. > >> In theory a Corvette 'could' get over 35 MPG if there was a high enough >> gear to minimize piston loss, but do ya think Detroit cares??? >> A 180 MPH car that also got 35 MPG would be a hot ticket. > > The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be to > hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, then at > 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's pretty loafy. Not that loafy. The aerodynamics of the car would let a V-8 put out enough power for 65 MPH at about 900 RPM, which is loafy. > >>> The Corvette has a large-displacement but surprisingly simple engine, >>> and it is a competitive sports car in areas of price and performance. It >>> weighs about the same as some cars that have half the displacement. >> Again, if I recall correctly, most of the GM blocks in use up to 400 CI >> are based on the 1955 Chevy V-8 and most parts interchange. The big >> blocks were a whole 'nother animal, and I never could figure out why >> there was a 454 and a 455 from the same company (GM). > > These days it's more complicated. the "Gen III" small-blocks and onwards > are very different engines from what came before. Also, oddly, the 6 and > 7 litre modern versions are effectively "small blocks," at least > inasmuch as they're based on the same Gen III project that began as a > 5.7l (350 ci) engine in 1997, designated "Generation IV" in these > iterations. No contention, but as far as I know the 350 was just a bored and stroked 283/265. > > The 454 was a Chevy engine, and the 455 was an Olds. This sort of thing > doesn't go on anymore, but the two engines were based on different > blocks and had different intended uses. Probably not enough to justify > two different designs... I know that because I was trying to build up a 455 and had a hard time finding parts, but there was always a 454 when I didn't need it. I finally ran out of money and patience. > >>> The engine package weights were hard for me to find, but here's a page >>> that lists "dressed engine weights" of a bit under 500 pounds for >>> 2001-model Corvette V8s. I believe the current engines are notably >>> lighter. I think "Dressed" means with all accessories bolted to the >>> engine (alternator, headers, water pump...) but I don't think it >>> includes the radiator or other off-the-block bits. >> I suspect they are using aluminum with steel cylinder liners to get that >> weight. Again, just a hunch, for the pricey toys. The really high tech >> guys go to not only electric fans but also electric after market water >> pumps for good idle cooling. > > Yes, these are Al blocks. > >>> ObBike: human power output depends on how long we are trying to go for, >>> but the 1-hour-max-power rate is a pretty useful analogue for the kind >>> of performances we can keep going for a while. > >>> And if you're wondering about the utility of these sports cars we're >>> discussing, well, I invite you to count the number of sports cars passed >>> by the bike in this video: >>> >>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=dj1Ifq9Tfas >>> >>> Z4, Mustang, two motorcycles, 3-series convertible...I don't see a lot >>> of places where 505 hp would have helped. >>> >> After watching that I conclude the guy has some really big brass ones on >> the saddle. That ride was a door event waiting to happen. Did you catch >> the ratty old Ford pickup that almost ran the rider into the concrete on >> the left hand turn? >> Whew. Why I hate riding in traffic. > > Funny, this video was filmed on a route that passes about two blocks > from my house; I know it well. I didn't think it looked scary at all. I know how to handle mountains and country roads, but this was not my idea of a fun ride, not even for a commute. > > Note that the pickup (around 1:12 in the video) is not running him into > the concrete in the left turn. that is a turn onto a little train-track > overpass, and the lane is very narrow on the overpass itself. It would > be perfectly normal to turn left from where the rider did, and just let > the car beside you get ahead through the left turn, which in this case > was the pickup. There's not really enough lane for a car and bike to be > beside each other on that short (100') section. I noticed. That is about the point I would try to find a sidewalk or another route. If I'm going to die on a bike I want it to be from something I did, not a pick me up driver. Bill Baka >               Date: 10 Jun 2007 14:03:56 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net >, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote: > The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be to > hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, then at > 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's pretty loafy. Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret this makes no sense to me. What is the red-line speed for each gear in a Corvette? -- Michael Press                 Date: 11 Jun 2007 00:11:08 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, > Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: > > > The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be to > > hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, then at > > 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's pretty loafy. > > Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret > this makes no sense to me. What is the red-line speed > for each gear in a Corvette? Well, I assumed top speed was 180 mph, achieved at 6000 rpm, and that that was redline for the engine. Redline is a function of engine speed, not gearing, so it's the same in all gears, with a "but" I'll explain in a moment. The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower model) are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and a claimed top speed of 198 mph. http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h tml This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! Both of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph at 6500 rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this suggests that different gearing could push the top speed a little higher, but to no practical purpose). To take Bill's question of how long-legged sixth is, the car can only hit a mere 160 mph at 3600 rpm in sixth. This means that in sixth gear, at 60 mph, the engine would be turning somewhere below 1500 rpm. 1500 rpm would be about 67 mph. One could argue for taller gearing, but I suspect that the people hoping to hit 30 mpg in a car that turns sub-12 quarters are not a very large market. EPA highway mileage is 26 mpg, which may be about as good as 500 horspower cars get. I'm looking for similar numbers for the base model. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos                   Date: 11 Jun 2007 03:12:12 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Ryan Cousineau wrote: > In article <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> In article >> <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, >> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: >> >>> The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be to >>> hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, then at >>> 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's pretty loafy. >> Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret >> this makes no sense to me. What is the red-line speed >> for each gear in a Corvette? > > Well, I assumed top speed was 180 mph, achieved at 6000 rpm, and that > that was redline for the engine. Redline is a function of engine speed, > not gearing, so it's the same in all gears, with a "but" I'll explain in > a moment. > > The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower model) > are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and a claimed > top speed of 198 mph. > > http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h > tml > > This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! Both > of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph at 6500 > rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this suggests that > different gearing could push the top speed a little higher, but to no > practical purpose). > > To take Bill's question of how long-legged sixth is, the car can only > hit a mere 160 mph at 3600 rpm in sixth. This means that in sixth gear, > at 60 mph, the engine would be turning somewhere below 1500 rpm. 1500 > rpm would be about 67 mph. 66.666MPH to be exact. Over gearing it still more to about 1,000 RPM would take it into the 30 MPG area. The difference is still mostly piston losses unless they have it cammed such that it runs like crap under 3,000 RPM. One could argue for taller gearing, but I > suspect that the people hoping to hit 30 mpg in a car that turns sub-12 > quarters are not a very large market. > > EPA highway mileage is 26 mpg, which may be about as good as 500 > horspower cars get. > > I'm looking for similar numbers for the base model. > This part of the thread has gone off to cars now, but those 'economy' cars that brag about 32 MPG are still laughable to me. 40 to 45 MPG is easily within reach if they would put another gear in for freeway cruising. The motor would have to put out more torque at lower RPM but that is one of the secrets of diesel engines getting such good mileage. Bill Baka                     Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:39:07 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Drive shaft Bill wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: >> In article <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >>> In article <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, >>> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be >>>> to hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, >>>> then at 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's pretty >>>> loafy. >>> Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret this makes no >>> sense to me. What is the red-line speed for each gear in a Corvette? >> >> Well, I assumed top speed was 180 mph, achieved at 6000 rpm, and that >> that was redline for the engine. Redline is a function of engine >> speed, not gearing, so it's the same in all gears, with a "but" I'll >> explain in a moment. >> >> The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower model) >> are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and a claimed >> top speed of 198 mph. >> >> http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h >> tml >> >> This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! Both >> of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph at 6500 >> rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this suggests that >> different gearing could push the top speed a little higher, but to no >> practical purpose). >> >> To take Bill's question of how long-legged sixth is, the car can only >> hit a mere 160 mph at 3600 rpm in sixth. This means that in sixth >> gear, at 60 mph, the engine would be turning somewhere below 1500 rpm. >> 1500 rpm would be about 67 mph. > > 66.666MPH to be exact. Over gearing it still more to about 1,000 RPM > would take it into the 30 MPG area. rubbish. > The difference is still mostly > piston losses unless they have it cammed such that it runs like crap > under 3,000 RPM. > > One could argue for taller gearing, but I >> suspect that the people hoping to hit 30 mpg in a car that turns >> sub-12 quarters are not a very large market. >> >> EPA highway mileage is 26 mpg, which may be about as good as 500 >> horspower cars get. >> >> I'm looking for similar numbers for the base model. >> > This part of the thread has gone off to cars now, but those 'economy' > cars that brag about 32 MPG are still laughable to me. 40 to 45 MPG is > easily within reach if they would put another gear in for freeway > cruising. The motor would have to put out more torque at lower RPM but > that is one of the secrets of diesel engines getting such good mileage. incorrect. it all it too were higher gears to make more fuel economy, everybody would have done that a century ago. basically, you have to match output to wind resistance at the given cruising speed, given that you also want to avoid lugging the engine. that's why ryan's over-driven vette is slower in top gear than it is in 5th - insufficient output at lower rpm's to match wind resistance. trying to "force" higher output at too low rpm's /increases/ gas consumption, not lowers it. you've got some serious learning to do                       Date: 10 Jun 2007 21:23:55 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft jim beam wrote: > Bill wrote: >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> In article <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, >>>> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be >>>>> to hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, >>>>> then at 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's >>>>> pretty loafy. >>>> Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret this makes no >>>> sense to me. What is the red-line speed for each gear in a Corvette? >>> >>> Well, I assumed top speed was 180 mph, achieved at 6000 rpm, and that >>> that was redline for the engine. Redline is a function of engine >>> speed, not gearing, so it's the same in all gears, with a "but" I'll >>> explain in a moment. >>> >>> The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower >>> model) are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and a >>> claimed top speed of 198 mph. >>> >>> http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h >>> >>> tml >>> >>> This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! >>> Both of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph >>> at 6500 rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this >>> suggests that different gearing could push the top speed a little >>> higher, but to no practical purpose). >>> >>> To take Bill's question of how long-legged sixth is, the car can only >>> hit a mere 160 mph at 3600 rpm in sixth. This means that in sixth >>> gear, at 60 mph, the engine would be turning somewhere below 1500 >>> rpm. 1500 rpm would be about 67 mph. >> >> 66.666MPH to be exact. Over gearing it still more to about 1,000 RPM >> would take it into the 30 MPG area. > > rubbish. Rubbish not. > >> The difference is still mostly piston losses unless they have it >> cammed such that it runs like crap under 3,000 RPM. >> >> One could argue for taller gearing, but I >>> suspect that the people hoping to hit 30 mpg in a car that turns >>> sub-12 quarters are not a very large market. >>> >>> EPA highway mileage is 26 mpg, which may be about as good as 500 >>> horspower cars get. >>> >>> I'm looking for similar numbers for the base model. >>> >> This part of the thread has gone off to cars now, but those 'economy' >> cars that brag about 32 MPG are still laughable to me. 40 to 45 MPG is >> easily within reach if they would put another gear in for freeway >> cruising. The motor would have to put out more torque at lower RPM but >> that is one of the secrets of diesel engines getting such good mileage. > > incorrect. it all it too were higher gears to make more fuel economy, > everybody would have done that a century ago. basically, you have to > match output to wind resistance at the given cruising speed, given that > you also want to avoid lugging the engine. that's why ryan's > over-driven vette is slower in top gear than it is in 5th - insufficient > output at lower rpm's to match wind resistance. trying to "force" > higher output at too low rpm's /increases/ gas consumption, not lowers it. > > you've got some serious learning to do You do, not me. I rebuilt a 1961 Rambler flathead 6 and put an overdrive in place of the original 3 speed, then changed the rear to as high a gear as I could find. The white brick got 38 MPG. My 1988 Mustang 302 H.O. had a 2.73 (2,76?) rear end and an overdrive fifth gear. If I cruised at 55 (cruise control) it got 33 MPG. I measured the effects of wind resistance on my 4,400 pound Chrysler and it worked out to about 14 HP to maintain 65 MPH. A new smaller car should need only about 10 HP and you can get that much even below 1,000 RPM. The problem is that mileage still does not sell cars when you have to down shift from a super economy gear just to go up a hill or pass someone. Everybody wants the power 'Right now' and don't want to have to shift. It isn't my problem people are stupid. In the case of the 'Vette it could still be geared higher for more highway mileage if the engine wasn't so radically cammed as to be lugging at 900 to 1,000 RPM. And gee whiz, it ONLY does 160 MPH in overdrive, boo-hoo. Do the math. Bill Baka                         Date: 10 Jun 2007 21:38:59 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Drive shaft Bill wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Bill wrote: >>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>> In article <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, >>>>> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to >>>>>> be to hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in >>>>>> sixth, then at 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. >>>>>> That's pretty loafy. >>>>> Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret this makes >>>>> no sense to me. What is the red-line speed for each gear in a >>>>> Corvette? >>>> >>>> Well, I assumed top speed was 180 mph, achieved at 6000 rpm, and >>>> that that was redline for the engine. Redline is a function of >>>> engine speed, not gearing, so it's the same in all gears, with a >>>> "but" I'll explain in a moment. >>>> >>>> The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower >>>> model) are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and a >>>> claimed top speed of 198 mph. >>>> >>>> http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h >>>> >>>> tml >>>> >>>> This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! >>>> Both of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph >>>> at 6500 rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this >>>> suggests that different gearing could push the top speed a little >>>> higher, but to no practical purpose). >>>> >>>> To take Bill's question of how long-legged sixth is, the car can >>>> only hit a mere 160 mph at 3600 rpm in sixth. This means that in >>>> sixth gear, at 60 mph, the engine would be turning somewhere below >>>> 1500 rpm. 1500 rpm would be about 67 mph. >>> >>> 66.666MPH to be exact. Over gearing it still more to about 1,000 RPM >>> would take it into the 30 MPG area. >> >> rubbish. > > Rubbish not. >> >>> The difference is still mostly piston losses unless they have it >>> cammed such that it runs like crap under 3,000 RPM. >>> >>> One could argue for taller gearing, but I >>>> suspect that the people hoping to hit 30 mpg in a car that turns >>>> sub-12 quarters are not a very large market. >>>> >>>> EPA highway mileage is 26 mpg, which may be about as good as 500 >>>> horspower cars get. >>>> >>>> I'm looking for similar numbers for the base model. >>>> >>> This part of the thread has gone off to cars now, but those 'economy' >>> cars that brag about 32 MPG are still laughable to me. 40 to 45 MPG >>> is easily within reach if they would put another gear in for freeway >>> cruising. The motor would have to put out more torque at lower RPM >>> but that is one of the secrets of diesel engines getting such good >>> mileage. >> >> incorrect. it all it too were higher gears to make more fuel economy, >> everybody would have done that a century ago. basically, you have to >> match output to wind resistance at the given cruising speed, given >> that you also want to avoid lugging the engine. that's why ryan's >> over-driven vette is slower in top gear than it is in 5th - >> insufficient output at lower rpm's to match wind resistance. trying >> to "force" higher output at too low rpm's /increases/ gas consumption, >> not lowers it. >> >> you've got some serious learning to do > > You do, not me. I rebuilt a 1961 Rambler flathead 6 and put an overdrive > in place of the original 3 speed, then changed the rear to as high a > gear as I could find. which was what exactly? > The white brick got 38 MPG. at what rpm's? and how did this map to the volumetric efficiency of the motor? one fortunate experience with a piece of garbage doesn't change the laws of physics, and the laws are: 1. speed requires power. 2. power is a function of engine rpm's, roughly speaking. > My 1988 Mustang 302 H.O. had a 2.73 (2,76?) rear end and an overdrive > fifth gear. If I cruised at 55 (cruise control) it got 33 MPG. > I measured the effects of wind resistance on my 4,400 pound Chrysler and > it worked out to about 14 HP to maintain 65 MPH. > A new smaller car should need only about 10 HP and you can get that much > even below 1,000 RPM. The problem is that mileage still does not sell > cars when you have to down shift from a super economy gear just to go up > a hill or pass someone. Everybody wants the power 'Right now' and don't > want to have to shift. > It isn't my problem people are stupid. you do not appreciate the irony. > In the case of the 'Vette it could still be geared higher for more > highway mileage if the engine wasn't so radically cammed as to be > lugging at 900 to 1,000 RPM. And gee whiz, it ONLY does 160 MPH in > overdrive, boo-hoo. > Do the math. crack a book bill.                           Date: 11 Jun 2007 05:51:27 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:38:59 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: >Bill wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Bill wrote: >>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>> In article <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, >>>>>> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to >>>>>>> be to hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in >>>>>>> sixth, then at 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. >>>>>>> That's pretty loafy. >>>>>> Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret this makes >>>>>> no sense to me. What is the red-line speed for each gear in a >>>>>> Corvette? >>>>> >>>>> Well, I assumed top speed was 180 mph, achieved at 6000 rpm, and >>>>> that that was redline for the engine. Redline is a function of >>>>> engine speed, not gearing, so it's the same in all gears, with a >>>>> "but" I'll explain in a moment. >>>>> >>>>> The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower >>>>> model) are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and a >>>>> claimed top speed of 198 mph. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h >>>>> >>>>> tml >>>>> >>>>> This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! >>>>> Both of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph >>>>> at 6500 rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this >>>>> suggests that different gearing could push the top speed a little >>>>> higher, but to no practical purpose). >>>>> >>>>> To take Bill's question of how long-legged sixth is, the car can >>>>> only hit a mere 160 mph at 3600 rpm in sixth. This means that in >>>>> sixth gear, at 60 mph, the engine would be turning somewhere below >>>>> 1500 rpm. 1500 rpm would be about 67 mph. >>>> >>>> 66.666MPH to be exact. Over gearing it still more to about 1,000 RPM >>>> would take it into the 30 MPG area. >>> >>> rubbish. >> >> Rubbish not. >>> >>>> The difference is still mostly piston losses unless they have it >>>> cammed such that it runs like crap under 3,000 RPM. >>>> >>>> One could argue for taller gearing, but I >>>>> suspect that the people hoping to hit 30 mpg in a car that turns >>>>> sub-12 quarters are not a very large market. >>>>> >>>>> EPA highway mileage is 26 mpg, which may be about as good as 500 >>>>> horspower cars get. >>>>> >>>>> I'm looking for similar numbers for the base model. >>>>> >>>> This part of the thread has gone off to cars now, but those 'economy' >>>> cars that brag about 32 MPG are still laughable to me. 40 to 45 MPG >>>> is easily within reach if they would put another gear in for freeway >>>> cruising. The motor would have to put out more torque at lower RPM >>>> but that is one of the secrets of diesel engines getting such good >>>> mileage. >>> >>> incorrect. it all it too were higher gears to make more fuel economy, >>> everybody would have done that a century ago. basically, you have to >>> match output to wind resistance at the given cruising speed, given >>> that you also want to avoid lugging the engine. that's why ryan's >>> over-driven vette is slower in top gear than it is in 5th - >>> insufficient output at lower rpm's to match wind resistance. trying >>> to "force" higher output at too low rpm's /increases/ gas consumption, >>> not lowers it. >>> >>> you've got some serious learning to do >> >> You do, not me. I rebuilt a 1961 Rambler flathead 6 and put an overdrive >> in place of the original 3 speed, then changed the rear to as high a >> gear as I could find. > >which was what exactly? > >> The white brick got 38 MPG. > >at what rpm's? and how did this map to the volumetric efficiency of the >motor? one fortunate experience with a piece of garbage doesn't change >the laws of physics, and the laws are: > >1. speed requires power. >2. power is a function of engine rpm's, roughly speaking. > > >> My 1988 Mustang 302 H.O. had a 2.73 (2,76?) rear end and an overdrive >> fifth gear. If I cruised at 55 (cruise control) it got 33 MPG. >> I measured the effects of wind resistance on my 4,400 pound Chrysler and >> it worked out to about 14 HP to maintain 65 MPH. >> A new smaller car should need only about 10 HP and you can get that much >> even below 1,000 RPM. The problem is that mileage still does not sell >> cars when you have to down shift from a super economy gear just to go up >> a hill or pass someone. Everybody wants the power 'Right now' and don't >> want to have to shift. >> It isn't my problem people are stupid. > >you do not appreciate the irony. > > >> In the case of the 'Vette it could still be geared higher for more >> highway mileage if the engine wasn't so radically cammed as to be >> lugging at 900 to 1,000 RPM. And gee whiz, it ONLY does 160 MPH in >> overdrive, boo-hoo. >> Do the math. > >crack a book bill. You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, he has previously posted this bs story no less than eight different times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been "35," "35+," "38," "38+" and "35-36."                             Date: 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > > You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, he has > previously posted this bs story no less than eight different times. > And the claimed mileage changes, it's been "35," "35+," "38," "38+" > and "35-36." Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for maybe a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was with a low tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka                               Date: 11 Jun 2007 10:40:18 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >R Brickston wrote: >> >> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, he has >> previously posted this bs story no less than eight different times. >> And the claimed mileage changes, it's been "35," "35+," "38," "38+" >> and "35-36." > >Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for maybe a >typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was with a low tech >flat head 6, 196 CI. >Bill Baka That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. Google it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and prove me wrong. Otherwise, STFU.                                 Date: 11 Jun 2007 18:25:54 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> R Brickston wrote: >>> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, he has >>> previously posted this bs story no less than eight different times. >>> And the claimed mileage changes, it's been "35," "35+," "38," "38+" >>> and "35-36." >> Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for maybe a >> typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was with a low tech >> flat head 6, 196 CI. >> Bill Baka > > That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. Google > it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and prove me > wrong. Otherwise, STFU. I never said it got anything except the 38 MPG on the highway, and on that trip I did do some city driving and even drove up to the snow in the mountains. Trip total was a tad over 250 miles and I still had about half a tank of gas. If I had stuck to the highway and only done 55 it may have topped 40 MPG. New cars are a joke to me. 50 MPG highway should be mandated by the EPA or DOT by now because it can be done. You, on the other hand, are just coming off as Usenets' biggest asshole. Bill Baka                                   Date: 11 Jun 2007 16:59:21 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <Ssgbi.13527$2v1.8307@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > R Brickston wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> R Brickston wrote: > >>> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, he > >>> has previously posted this bs story no less than eight different > >>> times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been "35," "35+," > >>> "38," "38+" and "35-36." > >> Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for > >> maybe a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was > >> with a low tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka > > > > That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. Google > > it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and prove me > > wrong. Otherwise, STFU. > > I never said it got anything except the 38 MPG on the highway, and on > that trip I did do some city driving and even drove up to the snow in > the mountains. Trip total was a tad over 250 miles and I still had > about half a tank of gas. If I had stuck to the highway and only done > 55 it may have topped 40 MPG. New cars are a joke to me. 50 MPG > highway should be mandated by the EPA or DOT by now because it can be > done. > > You, on the other hand, are just coming off as Usenets' biggest > asshole. No, he's really not. Usenet's biggest asshole doesn't frequent this newsgroup- thankfully.                                 Date: 11 Jun 2007 08:42:07 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <4h9q63tdps71prr20ndn4th4llb7tlr16i@4ax.com >, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > > >R Brickston wrote: > >> > >> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, he > >> has previously posted this bs story no less than eight different > >> times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been "35," "35+," > >> "38," "38+" and "35-36." > > > >Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for maybe > >a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was with a low > >tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka > > That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. Google > it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and prove me > wrong. Otherwise, STFU. Point of procedure. Since you're the one accusing Bill of lying, the onus is on you to prove your accusation- not on Bill to disprove your claim. If you can't prove your claim, then it is you who should "STFU." Having taken a logic class in high school would have made this clear to you. Your ploy is a popular one here in rec.bicycles.tech: "you're lying. If you can't prove you're not lying, then shut up." We see the same bullshit in presidential politics. It only impresses the ignorant and the gullible.                                   Date: 11 Jun 2007 12:52:27 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:42:07 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <4h9q63tdps71prr20ndn4th4llb7tlr16i@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >R Brickston wrote: >> >> >> >> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, he >> >> has previously posted this bs story no less than eight different >> >> times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been "35," "35+," >> >> "38," "38+" and "35-36." >> > >> >Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for maybe >> >a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was with a low >> >tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka >> >> That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. Google >> it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and prove me >> wrong. Otherwise, STFU. > >Point of procedure. Since you're the one accusing Bill of lying, the >onus is on you to prove your accusation- not on Bill to disprove your >claim. If you can't prove your claim, then it is you who should "STFU." >Having taken a logic class in high school would have made this clear to >you. [snip] Dear Tim, Agreed. Cheers, Carl Fogel                                   Date: 11 Jun 2007 18:28:04 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <4h9q63tdps71prr20ndn4th4llb7tlr16i@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> R Brickston wrote: >>>> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, he >>>> has previously posted this bs story no less than eight different >>>> times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been "35," "35+," >>>> "38," "38+" and "35-36." >>> Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for maybe >>> a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was with a low >>> tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka >> That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. Google >> it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and prove me >> wrong. Otherwise, STFU. > > Point of procedure. Since you're the one accusing Bill of lying, the > onus is on you to prove your accusation- not on Bill to disprove your > claim. If you can't prove your claim, then it is you who should "STFU." > Having taken a logic class in high school would have made this clear to > you. > > Your ploy is a popular one here in rec.bicycles.tech: "you're lying. > If you can't prove you're not lying, then shut up." We see the same > bullshit in presidential politics. It only impresses the ignorant and > the gullible. Amen. I sold the car in 1991 and didn't keep the gas receipt. My bad, I don't have proof in writing or photographic evidence. I'm tired of wasting time with this fool. Bill Baka                                     Date: 11 Jun 2007 16:57:58 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <Uugbi.13528$2v1.4898@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <4h9q63tdps71prr20ndn4th4llb7tlr16i@4ax.com>, > > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> R Brickston wrote: > >>>> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, he > >>>> has previously posted this bs story no less than eight different > >>>> times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been "35," "35+," > >>>> "38," "38+" and "35-36." > >>> Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for > >>> maybe a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was > >>> with a low tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka > >> That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. > >> Google it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and > >> prove me wrong. Otherwise, STFU. > > > > Point of procedure. Since you're the one accusing Bill of lying, > > the onus is on you to prove your accusation- not on Bill to > > disprove your claim. If you can't prove your claim, then it is you > > who should "STFU." Having taken a logic class in high school would > > have made this clear to you. > > > > Your ploy is a popular one here in rec.bicycles.tech: "you're > > lying. If you can't prove you're not lying, then shut up." We see > > the same bullshit in presidential politics. It only impresses the > > ignorant and the gullible. > > Amen. I sold the car in 1991 and didn't keep the gas receipt. My bad, > I don't have proof in writing or photographic evidence. I'm tired of > wasting time with this fool. Well, then stop engaging him. It takes both of you to carry this on.                                   Date: 11 Jun 2007 15:07:28 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:42:07 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <4h9q63tdps71prr20ndn4th4llb7tlr16i@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >R Brickston wrote: >> >> >> >> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, he >> >> has previously posted this bs story no less than eight different >> >> times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been "35," "35+," >> >> "38," "38+" and "35-36." >> > >> >Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for maybe >> >a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was with a low >> >tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka >> >> That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. Google >> it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and prove me >> wrong. Otherwise, STFU. > >Point of procedure. Since you're the one accusing Bill of lying, the >onus is on you to prove your accusation- not on Bill to disprove your >claim. If you can't prove your claim, then it is you who should "STFU." >Having taken a logic class in high school would have made this clear to >you. > >Your ploy is a popular one here in rec.bicycles.tech: "you're lying. >If you can't prove you're not lying, then shut up." We see the same >bullshit in presidential politics. It only impresses the ignorant and >the gullible. 1. Repeatedly proven prior as stated; 2. There is not too many of "the ignorant and the gullible" on rbt; 3. Continue to have your lovefest with Baka; 4. Stick your point of procedure where the sun does not shine.                                     Date: 11 Jun 2007 16:57:12 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <63pq63tub2acisum1squ384p30ooc9sgba@4ax.com >, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:42:07 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > >In article <4h9q63tdps71prr20ndn4th4llb7tlr16i@4ax.com>, > > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >R Brickston wrote: > >> >> > >> >> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, > >> >> he has previously posted this bs story no less than eight > >> >> different times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been > >> >> "35," "35+," "38," "38+" and "35-36." > >> > > >> >Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for > >> >maybe a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was > >> >with a low tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka > >> > >> That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. > >> Google it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and > >> prove me wrong. Otherwise, STFU. > > > >Point of procedure. Since you're the one accusing Bill of lying, > >the onus is on you to prove your accusation- not on Bill to disprove > >your claim. If you can't prove your claim, then it is you who > >should "STFU." Having taken a logic class in high school would have > >made this clear to you. > > > >Your ploy is a popular one here in rec.bicycles.tech: "you're > >lying. If you can't prove you're not lying, then shut up." We see > >the same bullshit in presidential politics. It only impresses the > >ignorant and the gullible. > > 1. Repeatedly proven prior as stated; Point one is that mere repetition != proof. Point two is that if proved, you still have to demonstrate significance. > 2. There is not too many of "the ignorant and the gullible" on rbt; You haven't been here long, I guess. > 3. Continue to have your lovefest with Baka; Argumentum ad absurdum. > 4. Stick your point of procedure where the sun does not shine. And more silly rudeness betraying your intellectual abilities.                                       Date: 12 Jun 2007 00:26:30 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:57:12 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <63pq63tub2acisum1squ384p30ooc9sgba@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:42:07 -0500, Tim McNamara >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <4h9q63tdps71prr20ndn4th4llb7tlr16i@4ax.com>, >> > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >R Brickston wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, >> >> >> he has previously posted this bs story no less than eight >> >> >> different times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been >> >> >> "35," "35+," "38," "38+" and "35-36." >> >> > >> >> >Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for >> >> >maybe a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was >> >> >with a low tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka >> >> >> >> That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. >> >> Google it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and >> >> prove me wrong. Otherwise, STFU. >> > >> >Point of procedure. Since you're the one accusing Bill of lying, >> >the onus is on you to prove your accusation- not on Bill to disprove >> >your claim. If you can't prove your claim, then it is you who >> >should "STFU." Having taken a logic class in high school would have >> >made this clear to you. >> > >> >Your ploy is a popular one here in rec.bicycles.tech: "you're >> >lying. If you can't prove you're not lying, then shut up." We see >> >the same bullshit in presidential politics. It only impresses the >> >ignorant and the gullible. >> >> 1. Repeatedly proven prior as stated; > >Point one is that mere repetition != proof. Point two is that if >proved, you still have to demonstrate significance. YOu were calling someone a "nit picker" in another post? >> 2. There is not too many of "the ignorant and the gullible" on rbt; > >You haven't been here long, I guess. > >> 3. Continue to have your lovefest with Baka; > >Argumentum ad absurdum. This is not a formal debate and the lovefest comment is obviously not presented as an argumentative point. >> 4. Stick your point of procedure where the sun does not shine. > >And more silly rudeness betraying your intellectual abilities. Not really, imo, ymmv. You invoked your "point of procedure" complaint, I am merely indicating my opinion on that formality, as well as others like it, as it relates in importance to the conversation. I find it rather highminded, although probably preferred over Mr. Baka's crude and somewhat primitive dialogue.                                         Date: 12 Jun 2007 00:36:49 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:57:12 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >> In article <63pq63tub2acisum1squ384p30ooc9sgba@4ax.com>, >> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:42:07 -0500, Tim McNamara >>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <4h9q63tdps71prr20ndn4th4llb7tlr16i@4ax.com>, >>>> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> R Brickston wrote: >>>>>>> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, >>>>>>> he has previously posted this bs story no less than eight >>>>>>> different times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been >>>>>>> "35," "35+," "38," "38+" and "35-36." >>>>>> Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for >>>>>> maybe a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was >>>>>> with a low tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka >>>>> That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. >>>>> Google it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and >>>>> prove me wrong. Otherwise, STFU. >>>> Point of procedure. Since you're the one accusing Bill of lying, >>>> the onus is on you to prove your accusation- not on Bill to disprove >>>> your claim. If you can't prove your claim, then it is you who >>>> should "STFU." Having taken a logic class in high school would have >>>> made this clear to you. >>>> >>>> Your ploy is a popular one here in rec.bicycles.tech: "you're >>>> lying. If you can't prove you're not lying, then shut up." We see >>>> the same bullshit in presidential politics. It only impresses the >>>> ignorant and the gullible. >>> 1. Repeatedly proven prior as stated; >> Point one is that mere repetition != proof. Point two is that if >> proved, you still have to demonstrate significance. > > YOu were calling someone a "nit picker" in another post? > >>> 2. There is not too many of "the ignorant and the gullible" on rbt; >> You haven't been here long, I guess. >> >>> 3. Continue to have your lovefest with Baka; >> Argumentum ad absurdum. > > This is not a formal debate and the lovefest comment is obviously not > presented as an argumentative point. > >>> 4. Stick your point of procedure where the sun does not shine. >> And more silly rudeness betraying your intellectual abilities. > > Not really, imo, ymmv. You invoked your "point of procedure" > complaint, I am merely indicating my opinion on that formality, as > well as others like it, as it relates in importance to the > conversation. I find it rather highminded, although probably preferred > over Mr. Baka's crude and somewhat primitive dialogue. Crude and primitive? My knowledge of English and I.Q. in general is beyond your comprehension, but I don't make a career out of posting just to attempt to give somebody a bad time. You are just a sorry case. Did you run Ed Dolan off? I'm staying here and may deign it worth some trivial time to answer you stupid posts. Bill (riding in the high 90's tomorrow) Baka                                           Date: 12 Jun 2007 13:14:13 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:36:49 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >> Not really, imo, ymmv. You invoked your "point of procedure" >> complaint, I am merely indicating my opinion on that formality, as >> well as others like it, as it relates in importance to the >> conversation. I find it rather highminded, although probably preferred >> over Mr. Baka's crude and somewhat primitive dialogue. >Crude and primitive? My knowledge of English and I.Q. in general is >beyond your comprehension, but I don't make a career out of posting just >to attempt to give somebody a bad time. >You are just a sorry case. >Did you run Ed Dolan off? >I'm staying here and may deign it worth some trivial time to answer you >stupid posts. >Bill (riding in the high 90's tomorrow) Baka Yes, your writing reminds me of Christopher Hitchens. Why, it simply reeks of eloquence.                                         Date: 11 Jun 2007 20:05:15 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <pepr63973smv21dk96db1prj5kmjigftqq@4ax.com >, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:57:12 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > >In article <63pq63tub2acisum1squ384p30ooc9sgba@4ax.com>, > > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:42:07 -0500, Tim McNamara > >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <4h9q63tdps71prr20ndn4th4llb7tlr16i@4ax.com>, > >> > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >R Brickston wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, > >> >> >> he has previously posted this bs story no less than eight > >> >> >> different times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been > >> >> >> "35," "35+," "38," "38+" and "35-36." > >> >> > > >> >> >Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for > >> >> >maybe a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was > >> >> >with a low tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka > >> >> > >> >> That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. > >> >> Google it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and > >> >> prove me wrong. Otherwise, STFU. > >> > > >> >Point of procedure. Since you're the one accusing Bill of lying, > >> >the onus is on you to prove your accusation- not on Bill to disprove > >> >your claim. If you can't prove your claim, then it is you who > >> >should "STFU." Having taken a logic class in high school would have > >> >made this clear to you. > >> > > >> >Your ploy is a popular one here in rec.bicycles.tech: "you're > >> >lying. If you can't prove you're not lying, then shut up." We see > >> >the same bullshit in presidential politics. It only impresses the > >> >ignorant and the gullible. > >> > >> 1. Repeatedly proven prior as stated; > > > >Point one is that mere repetition != proof. Point two is that if > >proved, you still have to demonstrate significance. > > YOu were calling someone a "nit picker" in another post? Yes, you were the nitpicker. That's because you were picking nits. Clearly you lack the understanding of basic logical procedures that sre necessary to effectively participate in this type of discussion > >> 2. There is not too many of "the ignorant and the gullible" on rbt; > > > >You haven't been here long, I guess. > > > >> 3. Continue to have your lovefest with Baka; > > > >Argumentum ad absurdum. > > This is not a formal debate and the lovefest comment is obviously not > presented as an argumentative point. I was pointing out the obvious flaws in your thinking. Although, to be fair, it's abundantly clear that you're not really interested in discussion. > >> 4. Stick your point of procedure where the sun does not shine. > > > >And more silly rudeness betraying your intellectual abilities. > > Not really, imo, ymmv. You invoked your "point of procedure" > complaint, I am merely indicating my opinion on that formality, as > well as others like it, as it relates in importance to the > conversation. I find it rather highminded, although probably preferred > over Mr. Baka's crude and somewhat primitive dialogue. Both of the antagonists- you and Bill- are on similar footing in this regard.                                     Date: 11 Jun 2007 18:29:35 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:42:07 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >> In article <4h9q63tdps71prr20ndn4th4llb7tlr16i@4ax.com>, >> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:46:19 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> R Brickston wrote: >>>>> You're wasting your time. In his "Rambler overdrive" fantasy, he >>>>> has previously posted this bs story no less than eight different >>>>> times. And the claimed mileage changes, it's been "35," "35+," >>>>> "38," "38+" and "35-36." >>>> Brickston, You are in fantasy land. I have always (except for maybe >>>> a typo) said it was 38 MPG at 65 MPH. That's what it was with a low >>>> tech flat head 6, 196 CI. Bill Baka >>> That's why Google is so handy, to determine who is the liar. Google >>> it, post it (each incidence of you telling the story) and prove me >>> wrong. Otherwise, STFU. >> Point of procedure. Since you're the one accusing Bill of lying, the >> onus is on you to prove your accusation- not on Bill to disprove your >> claim. If you can't prove your claim, then it is you who should "STFU." >> Having taken a logic class in high school would have made this clear to >> you. >> >> Your ploy is a popular one here in rec.bicycles.tech: "you're lying. >> If you can't prove you're not lying, then shut up." We see the same >> bullshit in presidential politics. It only impresses the ignorant and >> the gullible. > > 1. Repeatedly proven prior as stated; > > 2. There is not too many of "the ignorant and the gullible" on rbt; > > 3. Continue to have your lovefest with Baka; > > 4. Stick your point of procedure where the sun does not shine. Brickston, Do you even own a bike or do you just post here to impress yourself? Go pull your little pud for a while. I'll gladly send you a magnifying glass. Bill Baka                           Date: 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft jim beam wrote: > Bill wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Bill wrote: >>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>> In article >>>>> <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, >>>>>> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to >>>>>>> be to hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in >>>>>>> sixth, then at 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. >>>>>>> That's pretty loafy. >>>>>> Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret this makes >>>>>> no sense to me. What is the red-line speed for each gear in a >>>>>> Corvette? >>>>> >>>>> Well, I assumed top speed was 180 mph, achieved at 6000 rpm, and >>>>> that that was redline for the engine. Redline is a function of >>>>> engine speed, not gearing, so it's the same in all gears, with a >>>>> "but" I'll explain in a moment. >>>>> >>>>> The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower >>>>> model) are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and >>>>> a claimed top speed of 198 mph. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h >>>>> >>>>> tml >>>>> >>>>> This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! >>>>> Both of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph >>>>> at 6500 rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this >>>>> suggests that different gearing could push the top speed a little >>>>> higher, but to no practical purpose). >>>>> >>>>> To take Bill's question of how long-legged sixth is, the car can >>>>> only hit a mere 160 mph at 3600 rpm in sixth. This means that in >>>>> sixth gear, at 60 mph, the engine would be turning somewhere below >>>>> 1500 rpm. 1500 rpm would be about 67 mph. >>>> >>>> 66.666MPH to be exact. Over gearing it still more to about 1,000 RPM >>>> would take it into the 30 MPG area. >>> >>> rubbish. >> >> Rubbish not. >>> >>>> The difference is still mostly piston losses unless they have it >>>> cammed such that it runs like crap under 3,000 RPM. >>>> >>>> One could argue for taller gearing, but I >>>>> suspect that the people hoping to hit 30 mpg in a car that turns >>>>> sub-12 quarters are not a very large market. >>>>> >>>>> EPA highway mileage is 26 mpg, which may be about as good as 500 >>>>> horspower cars get. >>>>> >>>>> I'm looking for similar numbers for the base model. >>>>> >>>> This part of the thread has gone off to cars now, but those >>>> 'economy' cars that brag about 32 MPG are still laughable to me. 40 >>>> to 45 MPG is easily within reach if they would put another gear in >>>> for freeway cruising. The motor would have to put out more torque at >>>> lower RPM but that is one of the secrets of diesel engines getting >>>> such good mileage. >>> >>> incorrect. it all it too were higher gears to make more fuel >>> economy, everybody would have done that a century ago. basically, >>> you have to match output to wind resistance at the given cruising >>> speed, given that you also want to avoid lugging the engine. that's >>> why ryan's over-driven vette is slower in top gear than it is in 5th >>> - insufficient output at lower rpm's to match wind resistance. >>> trying to "force" higher output at too low rpm's /increases/ gas >>> consumption, not lowers it. >>> >>> you've got some serious learning to do >> >> You do, not me. I rebuilt a 1961 Rambler flathead 6 and put an >> overdrive in place of the original 3 speed, then changed the rear to >> as high a gear as I could find. > > which was what exactly? I believe I put a 3.00:1 in place of the more normal 3.5:1 along with the overdrive. That was 20 years ago but I do remember it could hit 85 MPH in overdrive and did not try for speed in direct. > >> The white brick got 38 MPG. > > at what rpm's? and how did this map to the volumetric efficiency of the > motor? one fortunate experience with a piece of garbage doesn't change > the laws of physics, and the laws are: > > 1. speed requires power. > 2. power is a function of engine rpm's, roughly speaking. Strictly speaking, 14 HP can be at 1,200 RPM with more torque than RPM. RPM's push up the losses due to piston movement and suck a lot more gas. The meeting point is about 5,500 RPM where 1 foot pound = 1 HP. > > >> My 1988 Mustang 302 H.O. had a 2.73 (2,76?) rear end and an overdrive >> fifth gear. If I cruised at 55 (cruise control) it got 33 MPG. >> I measured the effects of wind resistance on my 4,400 pound Chrysler >> and it worked out to about 14 HP to maintain 65 MPH. >> A new smaller car should need only about 10 HP and you can get that >> much even below 1,000 RPM. The problem is that mileage still does not >> sell cars when you have to down shift from a super economy gear just >> to go up a hill or pass someone. Everybody wants the power 'Right now' >> and don't want to have to shift. >> It isn't my problem people are stupid. > > you do not appreciate the irony. There is no irony, but hey, you tried. > > >> In the case of the 'Vette it could still be geared higher for more >> highway mileage if the engine wasn't so radically cammed as to be >> lugging at 900 to 1,000 RPM. And gee whiz, it ONLY does 160 MPH in >> overdrive, boo-hoo. >> Do the math. > > crack a book bill. Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in 5th. Bill Baka                             Date: 11 Jun 2007 06:01:34 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >jim beam wrote: >> Bill wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Bill wrote: >>>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>>> In article >>>>>> <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In article <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, >>>>>>> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to >>>>>>>> be to hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in >>>>>>>> sixth, then at 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. >>>>>>>> That's pretty loafy. >>>>>>> Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret this makes >>>>>>> no sense to me. What is the red-line speed for each gear in a >>>>>>> Corvette? >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I assumed top speed was 180 mph, achieved at 6000 rpm, and >>>>>> that that was redline for the engine. Redline is a function of >>>>>> engine speed, not gearing, so it's the same in all gears, with a >>>>>> "but" I'll explain in a moment. >>>>>> >>>>>> The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower >>>>>> model) are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and >>>>>> a claimed top speed of 198 mph. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h >>>>>> >>>>>> tml >>>>>> >>>>>> This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! >>>>>> Both of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph >>>>>> at 6500 rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this >>>>>> suggests that different gearing could push the top speed a little >>>>>> higher, but to no practical purpose). >>>>>> >>>>>> To take Bill's question of how long-legged sixth is, the car can >>>>>> only hit a mere 160 mph at 3600 rpm in sixth. This means that in >>>>>> sixth gear, at 60 mph, the engine would be turning somewhere below >>>>>> 1500 rpm. 1500 rpm would be about 67 mph. >>>>> >>>>> 66.666MPH to be exact. Over gearing it still more to about 1,000 RPM >>>>> would take it into the 30 MPG area. >>>> >>>> rubbish. >>> >>> Rubbish not. >>>> >>>>> The difference is still mostly piston losses unless they have it >>>>> cammed such that it runs like crap under 3,000 RPM. >>>>> >>>>> One could argue for taller gearing, but I >>>>>> suspect that the people hoping to hit 30 mpg in a car that turns >>>>>> sub-12 quarters are not a very large market. >>>>>> >>>>>> EPA highway mileage is 26 mpg, which may be about as good as 500 >>>>>> horspower cars get. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm looking for similar numbers for the base model. >>>>>> >>>>> This part of the thread has gone off to cars now, but those >>>>> 'economy' cars that brag about 32 MPG are still laughable to me. 40 >>>>> to 45 MPG is easily within reach if they would put another gear in >>>>> for freeway cruising. The motor would have to put out more torque at >>>>> lower RPM but that is one of the secrets of diesel engines getting >>>>> such good mileage. >>>> >>>> incorrect. it all it too were higher gears to make more fuel >>>> economy, everybody would have done that a century ago. basically, >>>> you have to match output to wind resistance at the given cruising >>>> speed, given that you also want to avoid lugging the engine. that's >>>> why ryan's over-driven vette is slower in top gear than it is in 5th >>>> - insufficient output at lower rpm's to match wind resistance. >>>> trying to "force" higher output at too low rpm's /increases/ gas >>>> consumption, not lowers it. >>>> >>>> you've got some serious learning to do >>> >>> You do, not me. I rebuilt a 1961 Rambler flathead 6 and put an >>> overdrive in place of the original 3 speed, then changed the rear to >>> as high a gear as I could find. >> >> which was what exactly? > >I believe I put a 3.00:1 in place of the more normal 3.5:1 along with >the overdrive. That was 20 years ago but I do remember it could hit 85 >MPH in overdrive and did not try for speed in direct. >> >>> The white brick got 38 MPG. >> >> at what rpm's? and how did this map to the volumetric efficiency of the >> motor? one fortunate experience with a piece of garbage doesn't change >> the laws of physics, and the laws are: >> >> 1. speed requires power. >> 2. power is a function of engine rpm's, roughly speaking. > >Strictly speaking, 14 HP can be at 1,200 RPM with more torque than RPM. >RPM's push up the losses due to piston movement and suck a lot more gas. >The meeting point is about 5,500 RPM where 1 foot pound = 1 HP. >> >> >>> My 1988 Mustang 302 H.O. had a 2.73 (2,76?) rear end and an overdrive >>> fifth gear. If I cruised at 55 (cruise control) it got 33 MPG. >>> I measured the effects of wind resistance on my 4,400 pound Chrysler >>> and it worked out to about 14 HP to maintain 65 MPH. >>> A new smaller car should need only about 10 HP and you can get that >>> much even below 1,000 RPM. The problem is that mileage still does not >>> sell cars when you have to down shift from a super economy gear just >>> to go up a hill or pass someone. Everybody wants the power 'Right now' >>> and don't want to have to shift. >>> It isn't my problem people are stupid. >> >> you do not appreciate the irony. > >There is no irony, but hey, you tried. >> >> >>> In the case of the 'Vette it could still be geared higher for more >>> highway mileage if the engine wasn't so radically cammed as to be >>> lugging at 900 to 1,000 RPM. And gee whiz, it ONLY does 160 MPH in >>> overdrive, boo-hoo. >>> Do the math. >> >> crack a book bill. > >Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in 5th. >Bill Baka Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, 162.5 or 165.                               Date: 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in 5th. >> Bill Baka > > Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, 162.5 or > 165. Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 zone. You are seriously pathetic.                                 Date: 11 Jun 2007 10:38:21 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >R Brickston wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in 5th. >>> Bill Baka >> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, 162.5 or >> 165. >Poor Brickshit. >I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and someone goes 75 MPH. >You are a sorry sack of shit. >The best I could tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH >speed of just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be >twice that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had to >mark down the RPM and calculate. >It was somewhere in the category of "Way too fast". >Bill Baka >You really should get a life, unless you are afraid of the big bad cop >giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 zone. >You are seriously pathetic. Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each individually definitive.                                   Date: 11 Jun 2007 11:15:16 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> R Brickston wrote: >>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in 5th. >>>> Bill Baka >>> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, 162.5 or >>> 165. >> Poor Brickshit. >> I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and someone goes 75 MPH. >> You are a sorry sack of shit. >> The best I could tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH >> speed of just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be >> twice that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >> expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had to >> mark down the RPM and calculate. >> It was somewhere in the category of "Way too fast". >> Bill Baka >> You really should get a life, unless you are afraid of the big bad cop >> giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 zone. >> You are seriously pathetic. > > Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and > 165, were each individually definitive. The speedometer only went to 85 so I had to extrapolate from the tach. Double 80 MPH worth of RPM's is in the 160+ range and a little up from that by going over 6,000 RPM and some possible tire expansion from centrifugal force effects. I didn't get radared so it is somewhere in there. I also don't give a flying fuck what YOU think, since there appear to be so few functional neurons. Bill Baka                                     Date: 12 Jun 2007 00:33:37 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:15:16 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in various posts: "moronic wonder boy" "yur piss ant brain" "I also don't give a flying fuck" "you, sorry sack of shit" "Usenets' biggest asshole" "Go pull your little pud for a while" "me stupider than you?" "the ultra asshole" Billy, Do you use some sort of "clever retorts" reference book to find these intellectual masterpieces?                                       Date: 12 Jun 2007 14:58:20 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:15:16 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in > various posts: > > "moronic wonder boy" > "yur piss ant brain" > "I also don't give a flying fuck" > "you, sorry sack of shit" > "Usenets' biggest asshole" > "Go pull your little pud for a while" > "me stupider than you?" > "the ultra asshole" > > Billy, Do you use some sort of "clever retorts" reference book to find > these intellectual masterpieces? > I'm sure everyone else shares my opinion of you. That was the one line you aren't worth. Bill Baka                                       Date: 11 Jun 2007 20:16:31 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <v8qr63l1cn5acl1la55rajvjhlte88rjfc@4ax.com >, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:15:16 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in > various posts: > > "moronic wonder boy" > "yur piss ant brain" > "I also don't give a flying fuck" > "you, sorry sack of shit" > "Usenets' biggest asshole" > "Go pull your little pud for a while" > "me stupider than you?" > "the ultra asshole" > > Billy, Do you use some sort of "clever retorts" reference book to > find these intellectual masterpieces? And here we see a demonstration of Bill's various rudenesses, which have also contributed. (Speaking here are a guy trying to refrain from rudeness himself and not always succeeding. It should be possible to be forthright and polite).                                         Date: 12 Jun 2007 14:59:17 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <v8qr63l1cn5acl1la55rajvjhlte88rjfc@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:15:16 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in >> various posts: >> >> "moronic wonder boy" >> "yur piss ant brain" >> "I also don't give a flying fuck" >> "you, sorry sack of shit" >> "Usenets' biggest asshole" >> "Go pull your little pud for a while" >> "me stupider than you?" >> "the ultra asshole" >> >> Billy, Do you use some sort of "clever retorts" reference book to >> find these intellectual masterpieces? > > And here we see a demonstration of Bill's various rudenesses, which have > also contributed. (Speaking here are a guy trying to refrain from > rudeness himself and not always succeeding. It should be possible to be > forthright and polite). I try not to be rude, but if you notice every post of his is aimed at attacking me. Sorry, Bill Baka                                         Date: 12 Jun 2007 01:49:18 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:16:31 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <v8qr63l1cn5acl1la55rajvjhlte88rjfc@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:15:16 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in >> various posts: >> >> "moronic wonder boy" >> "yur piss ant brain" >> "I also don't give a flying fuck" >> "you, sorry sack of shit" >> "Usenets' biggest asshole" >> "Go pull your little pud for a while" >> "me stupider than you?" >> "the ultra asshole" >> >> Billy, Do you use some sort of "clever retorts" reference book to >> find these intellectual masterpieces? > >And here we see a demonstration of Bill's various rudenesses, which have >also contributed. (Speaking here are a guy trying to refrain from >rudeness himself and not always succeeding. It should be possible to be >forthright and polite). Well, Tim, you don't have to monitor the situation that closely. BTW, politeness, etc., is given as a benfit of the doubt, then has to be taken away when that benefit is taken for granted.                                           Date: 11 Jun 2007 23:11:50 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <8our63dmlmk6kp1sl77hi5ta9s339q9nvr@4ax.com >, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:16:31 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > >In article <v8qr63l1cn5acl1la55rajvjhlte88rjfc@4ax.com>, > > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:15:16 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote > >> in various posts: > >> > >> "moronic wonder boy" "yur piss ant brain" "I also don't give a > >> flying fuck" "you, sorry sack of shit" "Usenets' biggest asshole" > >> "Go pull your little pud for a while" "me stupider than you?" "the > >> ultra asshole" > >> > >> Billy, Do you use some sort of "clever retorts" reference book to > >> find these intellectual masterpieces? > > > >And here we see a demonstration of Bill's various rudenesses, which > >have also contributed. (Speaking here are a guy trying to refrain > >from rudeness himself and not always succeeding. It should be > >possible to be forthright and polite). > > Well, Tim, you don't have to monitor the situation that closely. Quite true. The nosed that's poked into others' business too freely gets punched eventually. > BTW, politeness, etc., is given as a benfit of the doubt, then has to > be taken away when that benefit is taken for granted. I'll have to ponder that.                                   Date: 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com >, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > > >R Brickston wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in > >>> 5th. Bill Baka > >> > >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, > >> 162.5 or 165. > >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and > >someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could > >tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of > >just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice > >that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire > >expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had > >to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category > >of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless > >you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 > >zone. You are seriously pathetic. > > Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each > individually definitive. And you think these differences are significant for what reason? Other than picking nits?                                     Date: 11 Jun 2007 12:51:21 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >R Brickston wrote: >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >> >>> 5th. Bill Baka >> >> >> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >> >> 162.5 or 165. >> >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >> >someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could >> >tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of >> >just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice >> >that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >> >expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had >> >to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category >> >of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless >> >you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 >> >zone. You are seriously pathetic. >> >> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >> individually definitive. > >And you think these differences are significant for what reason? Other >than picking nits? Dear Tim, Agreed. Cheers, Carl Fogel                                       Date: 11 Jun 2007 22:44:27 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:51:21 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara ><timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >>In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, >> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> >R Brickston wrote: >>> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >>> >>> 5th. Bill Baka >>> >> >>> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >>> >> 162.5 or 165. >>> >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >>> >someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could >>> >tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of >>> >just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice >>> >that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >>> >expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had >>> >to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category >>> >of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless >>> >you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 >>> >zone. You are seriously pathetic. >>> >>> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >>> individually definitive. >> >>And you think these differences are significant for what reason? Other >>than picking nits? > >Dear Tim, > >Agreed. > >Cheers, > >Carl Fogel Dear Carl; Do you agree Baka's veracity is generally suspect? Sincerely, RB                                         Date: 12 Jun 2007 00:39:15 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:51:21 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > <Snip > > Dear Carl; > > Do you agree Baka's veracity is generally suspect? > > Sincerely, > > RB > All I can say is that I live life to the fullest and get into some strange situations. RB apparently lives under a rock somewhere. Bill Baka                                           Date: 12 Jun 2007 13:16:00 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:39:15 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >R Brickston wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:51:21 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> ><Snip> > >> Dear Carl; >> >> Do you agree Baka's veracity is generally suspect? >> >> Sincerely, >> >> RB >> >All I can say is that I live life to the fullest and get into some >strange situations. RB apparently lives under a rock somewhere. >Bill Baka And, apparently, Mr. Baka is the only one to have done so.                                         Date: 11 Jun 2007 17:04:58 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:44:27 GMT, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote: >On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:51:21 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara >><timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >>>In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, >>> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >R Brickston wrote: >>>> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >>>> >>> 5th. Bill Baka >>>> >> >>>> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >>>> >> 162.5 or 165. >>>> >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >>>> >someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could >>>> >tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of >>>> >just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice >>>> >that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >>>> >expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had >>>> >to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category >>>> >of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless >>>> >you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 >>>> >zone. You are seriously pathetic. >>>> >>>> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >>>> individually definitive. >>> >>>And you think these differences are significant for what reason? Other >>>than picking nits? >> >>Dear Tim, >> >>Agreed. >> >>Cheers, >> >>Carl Fogel > >Dear Carl; > >Do you agree Baka's veracity is generally suspect? > >Sincerely, > >RB Dear RB, I can't possibly agree with someone who misuses a semi-colon so egregiously. :) In other words, I agreed with Tim that you're picking nits. Cheers, Carl Fogel                                           Date: 11 Jun 2007 23:48:13 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:04:58 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:44:27 GMT, R Brickston ><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:51:21 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara >>><timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>> >>>>In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, >>>> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >R Brickston wrote: >>>>> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >>>>> >>> 5th. Bill Baka >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >>>>> >> 162.5 or 165. >>>>> >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >>>>> >someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could >>>>> >tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of >>>>> >just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice >>>>> >that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >>>>> >expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had >>>>> >to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category >>>>> >of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless >>>>> >you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 >>>>> >zone. You are seriously pathetic. >>>>> >>>>> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >>>>> individually definitive. >>>> >>>>And you think these differences are significant for what reason? Other >>>>than picking nits? >>> >>>Dear Tim, >>> >>>Agreed. >>> >>>Cheers, >>> >>>Carl Fogel >> >>Dear Carl; >> >>Do you agree Baka's veracity is generally suspect? >> >>Sincerely, >> >>RB > >Dear RB, > >I can't possibly agree with someone who misuses a semi-colon so >egregiously. > > :) > >In other words, I agreed with Tim that you're picking nits. > >Cheers, > >Carl Fogel Dear Carl, That's not the question I asked. Sincerely, RB                                             Date: 11 Jun 2007 18:05:37 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:48:13 GMT, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote: >On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:04:58 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:44:27 GMT, R Brickston >><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:51:21 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara >>>><timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, >>>>> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >R Brickston wrote: >>>>>> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >>>>>> >>> 5th. Bill Baka >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >>>>>> >> 162.5 or 165. >>>>>> >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >>>>>> >someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could >>>>>> >tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of >>>>>> >just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice >>>>>> >that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >>>>>> >expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had >>>>>> >to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category >>>>>> >of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless >>>>>> >you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 >>>>>> >zone. You are seriously pathetic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >>>>>> individually definitive. >>>>> >>>>>And you think these differences are significant for what reason? Other >>>>>than picking nits? >>>> >>>>Dear Tim, >>>> >>>>Agreed. >>>> >>>>Cheers, >>>> >>>>Carl Fogel >>> >>>Dear Carl; >>> >>>Do you agree Baka's veracity is generally suspect? >>> >>>Sincerely, >>> >>>RB >> >>Dear RB, >> >>I can't possibly agree with someone who misuses a semi-colon so >>egregiously. >> >> :) >> >>In other words, I agreed with Tim that you're picking nits. >> >>Cheers, >> >>Carl Fogel > >Dear Carl, > >That's not the question I asked. > >Sincerely, > >RB Dear RB, But the answer is the point that Tim made, and that I agreed with. Your obsession reached the point that you began snarling obscenities at Tim because he pointed out that you're picking nits here and demanding elsewhere that Bill Baka look up and provide evidence to prove your accusations against himself. Whatever Bill Baka may or may not have done years ago on some other newsgroup, the spectacle that you're making of yourself stalking him obscures it. Calm down, give it a rest, and preserve your own credibility. Ranting that someone must be a liar because he gave speed figures ranging from 160 to 165 mph about car speeds is not likely to convince many posters on a bicycle group. Cheers, Carl Fogel                                               Date: 12 Jun 2007 00:41:26 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:48:13 GMT, R Brickston > <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:04:58 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:44:27 GMT, R Brickston >>> <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:51:21 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara >>>>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, >>>>>> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> R Brickston wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >>>>>>>>>> 5th. Bill Baka >>>>>>>>> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >>>>>>>>> 162.5 or 165. >>>>>>>> Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >>>>>>>> someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could >>>>>>>> tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of >>>>>>>> just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice >>>>>>>> that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >>>>>>>> expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had >>>>>>>> to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category >>>>>>>> of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless >>>>>>>> you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 >>>>>>>> zone. You are seriously pathetic. >>>>>>> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >>>>>>> individually definitive. >>>>>> And you think these differences are significant for what reason? Other >>>>>> than picking nits? >>>>> Dear Tim, >>>>> >>>>> Agreed. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Carl Fogel >>>> Dear Carl; >>>> >>>> Do you agree Baka's veracity is generally suspect? >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> RB >>> Dear RB, >>> >>> I can't possibly agree with someone who misuses a semi-colon so >>> egregiously. >>> >>> :) >>> >>> In other words, I agreed with Tim that you're picking nits. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Carl Fogel >> Dear Carl, >> >> That's not the question I asked. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> RB > > Dear RB, > > But the answer is the point that Tim made, and that I agreed with. > > Your obsession reached the point that you began snarling obscenities > at Tim because he pointed out that you're picking nits here and > demanding elsewhere that Bill Baka look up and provide evidence to > prove your accusations against himself. > > Whatever Bill Baka may or may not have done years ago on some other > newsgroup, the spectacle that you're making of yourself stalking him > obscures it. > > Calm down, give it a rest, and preserve your own credibility. Ranting > that someone must be a liar because he gave speed figures ranging from > 160 to 165 mph about car speeds is not likely to convince many posters > on a bicycle group. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel The car was capable so I just had to try it, once and only once. Spend $20,000 on a sports car and then never use the gas pedal? Who does that? Bill Baka                                                 Date: 12 Jun 2007 13:19:13 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:41:26 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >>Ranting that someone must be a liar because he gave speed figures ranging from >> 160 to 165 mph about car speeds is not likely to convince many posters >> on a bicycle group. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > >The car was capable so I just had to try it, once and only once. >Spend $20,000 on a sports car and then never use the gas pedal? >Who does that? >Bill Baka It would seem that at least Carl is in full and total belief of your many amazing accomplishments.                                                   Date: 13 Jun 2007 13:00:17 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:41:26 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> Ranting that someone must be a liar because he gave speed figures ranging from >>> 160 to 165 mph about car speeds is not likely to convince many posters >>> on a bicycle group. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Carl Fogel >> The car was capable so I just had to try it, once and only once. >> Spend $20,000 on a sports car and then never use the gas pedal? >> Who does that? >> Bill Baka > > It would seem that at least Carl is in full and total belief of your > many amazing accomplishments. Does your brain work at all or are you just typing random insults? The car was capable of that speed and I tried it, so what's the big deal. Could it be that I didn't get caught and don't have a ticket to prove it? Or are you just too big a pussy to get in a car that fast. Either way, you have some pretty serious mental issues. Find a good shrink, since it is soooo very obvious you need one. You are the classic definition of wasted bandwidth. Bill Baka                                               Date: 12 Jun 2007 00:45:37 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:05:37 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:48:13 GMT, R Brickston ><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:04:58 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:44:27 GMT, R Brickston >>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:51:21 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara >>>>><timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, >>>>>> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >R Brickston wrote: >>>>>>> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >>>>>>> >>> 5th. Bill Baka >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >>>>>>> >> 162.5 or 165. >>>>>>> >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >>>>>>> >someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could >>>>>>> >tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of >>>>>>> >just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice >>>>>>> >that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >>>>>>> >expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had >>>>>>> >to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category >>>>>>> >of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless >>>>>>> >you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 >>>>>>> >zone. You are seriously pathetic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >>>>>>> individually definitive. >>>>>> >>>>>>And you think these differences are significant for what reason? Other >>>>>>than picking nits? >>>>> >>>>>Dear Tim, >>>>> >>>>>Agreed. >>>>> >>>>>Cheers, >>>>> >>>>>Carl Fogel >>>> >>>>Dear Carl; >>>> >>>>Do you agree Baka's veracity is generally suspect? >>>> >>>>Sincerely, >>>> >>>>RB >>> >>>Dear RB, >>> >>>I can't possibly agree with someone who misuses a semi-colon so >>>egregiously. >>> >>> :) >>> >>>In other words, I agreed with Tim that you're picking nits. >>> >>>Cheers, >>> >>>Carl Fogel >> >>Dear Carl, >> >>That's not the question I asked. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>RB > >Dear RB, > >But the answer is the point that Tim made, and that I agreed with. > >Your obsession reached the point that you began snarling obscenities >at Tim because he pointed out that you're picking nits here and >demanding elsewhere that Bill Baka look up and provide evidence to >prove your accusations against himself. > >Whatever Bill Baka may or may not have done years ago on some other >newsgroup, the spectacle that you're making of yourself stalking him >obscures it. > >Calm down, give it a rest, and preserve your own credibility. Ranting >that someone must be a liar because he gave speed figures ranging from >160 to 165 mph about car speeds is not likely to convince many posters >on a bicycle group. > >Cheers, > >Carl Fogel Dear Carl, Please read my recent replies to Tim elsewhere in this thread; the context, at least my context, is not as you suggest. Sincerely, RB                                     Date: 11 Jun 2007 18:20:10 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> R Brickston wrote: >>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >>>>> 5th. Bill Baka >>>> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >>>> 162.5 or 165. >>> Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >>> someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could >>> tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of >>> just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice >>> that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >>> expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had >>> to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category >>> of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless >>> you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 >>> zone. You are seriously pathetic. >> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >> individually definitive. > > And you think these differences are significant for what reason? Other > than picking nits? He doesn't appear to have anything better to do than be my personal stalker. I don't go back and research my own posts for the last 5 years like he does, so guess who has a mental problem. Hint: It isn't me. It was between 160 and 165 depending on how accurate the tach was and if the tires grew with speed. The exact speed to 0.1 MPH doesn't concern me, only that it was a fast car and like the Corvette, would not get there in top overdrive gear. I was really only agreeing that the top gear on a modern performance car is a serious overdrive so they can get some semi-decent mileage. Bill Baka                                     Date: 11 Jun 2007 15:10:01 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >R Brickston wrote: >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >> >>> 5th. Bill Baka >> >> >> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >> >> 162.5 or 165. >> >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >> >someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could >> >tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of >> >just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice >> >that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >> >expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had >> >to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category >> >of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless >> >you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 >> >zone. You are seriously pathetic. >> >> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >> individually definitive. > >And you think these differences are significant for what reason? Other >than picking nits? 1. As far as your ability to see the context... WHOOOSH...; 2. Goes to veracity or lack therof; 3.Fuck Off.                                       Date: 11 Jun 2007 16:53:27 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <s9pq639nie3ggn16sumcb3l0mc2kldht0l@4ax.com >, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > >In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, > > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >R Brickston wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in > >> >>> 5th. Bill Baka > >> >> > >> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, > >> >> 162.5 or 165. > >> >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and > >> >someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I > >> >could tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH > >> >speed of just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 > >> >would be twice that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 > >> >depending on tire expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then > >> >stopped at 85 so I had to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was > >> >somewhere in the category of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really > >> >should get a life, unless you are afraid of the big bad cop > >> >giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 zone. You are seriously > >> >pathetic. > >> > >> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each > >> individually definitive. > > > >And you think these differences are significant for what reason? > >Other than picking nits? > > 1. As far as your ability to see the context... WHOOOSH...; The context is that you don't like Bill, or at least you don't like what he posts and you take it personally. That context is easy to see, although you seem to have overlooked it. > 2. Goes to veracity or lack therof; Again, you are under the delusion that these minor differences are important for what reason? Would you think Bill's story more likely to be accurate if he wrote 162.37651 mph each time? All you are doing is picking nits in hopes that discredits your opponent, but it just makes you look like a petulant whiner. > 3.Fuck Off. Speaking of veracity... You kiss your momma with that mouth?                                         Date: 12 Jun 2007 00:16:11 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:53:27 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <s9pq639nie3ggn16sumcb3l0mc2kldht0l@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, >> > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >R Brickston wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >> >> >>> 5th. Bill Baka >> >> >> >> >> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >> >> >> 162.5 or 165. >> >> >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >> >> >someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I >> >> >could tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH >> >> >speed of just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 >> >> >would be twice that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 >> >> >depending on tire expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then >> >> >stopped at 85 so I had to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was >> >> >somewhere in the category of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really >> >> >should get a life, unless you are afraid of the big bad cop >> >> >giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 zone. You are seriously >> >> >pathetic. >> >> >> >> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >> >> individually definitive. >> > >> >And you think these differences are significant for what reason? >> >Other than picking nits? >> >> 1. As far as your ability to see the context... WHOOOSH...; > >The context is that you don't like Bill, or at least you don't like what >he posts and you take it personally. That context is easy to see, >although you seem to have overlooked it. Forgetting the question of context, as you have, I simply don't enjoy reading a newsgroup used by a windbag braggart making up fantasy scenarios for their own self-aggrandizement. I would venture that others may feel the same. That what may appear to you as a personal issue is not. Perhaps you are looking at it from your own perspective. > >> 2. Goes to veracity or lack therof; > >Again, you are under the delusion that these minor differences are >important for what reason? Would you think Bill's story more likely to >be accurate if he wrote 162.37651 mph each time? All you are doing is >picking nits in hopes that discredits your opponent, but it just makes >you look like a petulant whiner. Well, if you're going to state someone is under a delusion, one would think using the interrogative isn't going to be quite argumentative enough. The context is obvious; if one performed the act claimed the performance should be etched in memory and not later reported as four different definitive claims in as many versions. The picking of nits, perhaps, so far. However, coupled with Mr. Baka's penchant for producing seemingly hundreds of grandiose, pretentious and poorly written "accomplishments," it may be more apparent that it's not about this "160 mph" nit in particular. > >> 3.Fuck Off. > >Speaking of veracity... You kiss your momma with that mouth? "Fuck Off" retracted.                                           Date: 12 Jun 2007 00:46:49 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:53:27 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >> In article <s9pq639nie3ggn16sumcb3l0mc2kldht0l@4ax.com>, >> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara >>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, >>>> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> R Brickston wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >>>>>>>> 5th. Bill Baka >>>>>>> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >>>>>>> 162.5 or 165. >>>>>> Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >>>>>> someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I >>>>>> could tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH >>>>>> speed of just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 >>>>>> would be twice that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 >>>>>> depending on tire expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then >>>>>> stopped at 85 so I had to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was >>>>>> somewhere in the category of "Way too fast". Bill Baka You really >>>>>> should get a life, unless you are afraid of the big bad cop >>>>>> giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 zone. You are seriously >>>>>> pathetic. >>>>> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >>>>> individually definitive. >>>> And you think these differences are significant for what reason? >>>> Other than picking nits? >>> 1. As far as your ability to see the context... WHOOOSH...; >> The context is that you don't like Bill, or at least you don't like what >> he posts and you take it personally. That context is easy to see, >> although you seem to have overlooked it. > > Forgetting the question of context, as you have, I simply don't enjoy > reading a newsgroup used by a windbag braggart making up fantasy > scenarios for their own self-aggrandizement. I would venture that > others may feel the same. That what may appear to you as a personal > issue is not. Perhaps you are looking at it from your own perspective. I had a few too many beers when I posted that one (1) post about the tricycle so he thinks I am making up all the other stuff that I have actually done. Like I said, live life, don't cower from it. >>> 2. Goes to veracity or lack therof; >> Again, you are under the delusion that these minor differences are >> important for what reason? Would you think Bill's story more likely to >> be accurate if he wrote 162.37651 mph each time? All you are doing is >> picking nits in hopes that discredits your opponent, but it just makes >> you look like a petulant whiner. > > Well, if you're going to state someone is under a delusion, one would > think using the interrogative isn't going to be quite argumentative > enough. The context is obvious; if one performed the act claimed the > performance should be etched in memory and not later reported as four > different definitive claims in as many versions. The picking of nits, > perhaps, so far. However, coupled with Mr. Baka's penchant for > producing seemingly hundreds of grandiose, pretentious and poorly > written "accomplishments," it may be more apparent that it's not about > this "160 mph" nit in particular. It was capable of 155 when I bought it. Then I tweaked the timing and fuel ratio and it put itself in the red zone at over 160. Motor Trend blew their road test because they had a poorly geared car and tried to get their top speed in overdrive, which was published as about 140. Proper gearing, as in my car paid off. I had a 2.73 and they had a 3.23 for quarter mile stuff, and that was totally unneeded, since my car would break loose on throttle alone at 35 in first. Those were nice Mustangs back in 1988. Bill Baka > >>> 3.Fuck Off. >> Speaking of veracity... You kiss your momma with that mouth? > > "Fuck Off" retracted.                                             Date: 12 Jun 2007 13:25:03 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:46:49 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >I had a few too many beers when I posted that one (1) post about the >tricycle so he thinks I am making up all the other stuff that I have >actually done. Like I said, live life, don't cower from it. Once in your posting career you had "a few too many beers" before you hit the keyboard. To funny, Billy. >It was capable of 155 when I bought it. Then I tweaked the timing and >fuel ratio and it put itself in the red zone at over 160. Motor Trend >blew their road test because they had a poorly geared car and tried to >get their top speed in overdrive, which was published as about 140. >Proper gearing, as in my car paid off. >I had a 2.73 and they had a 3.23 for quarter mile stuff, and that was >totally unneeded, since my car would break loose on throttle alone at 35 >in first. >Those were nice Mustangs back in 1988. >Bill Baka Oh, do drone on. Google it and see how many times you have beaten this lame story to death. You left out the color and type of shirt you were wearing during this amazing "exploit."                                               Date: 13 Jun 2007 13:01:44 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > Oh, do drone on. Google it and see how many times you have beaten this > lame story to death. You left out the color and type of shirt you were > wearing during this amazing "exploit." I am no longer going to waste my time, and others by responding to you. Later, dipstick.                                                 Date: 14 Jun 2007 04:18:54 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <YURbi.15610$y_7.14650@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > R Brickston wrote: > > Oh, do drone on. Google it and see how many times you have beaten this > > lame story to death. You left out the color and type of shirt you were > > wearing during this amazing "exploit." > > I am no longer going to waste my time, and others by responding to you. > Later, dipstick. This is known as "good judgment." -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos                                                   Date: 14 Jun 2007 14:02:20 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:18:54 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote: >In article <YURbi.15610$y_7.14650@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> R Brickston wrote: >> > Oh, do drone on. Google it and see how many times you have beaten this >> > lame story to death. You left out the color and type of shirt you were >> > wearing during this amazing "exploit." >> >> I am no longer going to waste my time, and others by responding to you. >> Later, dipstick. > >This is known as "good judgment." Unfortunately, very late in coming; an alternative term: "good riddance."                                                 Date: 13 Jun 2007 19:11:26 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:01:44 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >R Brickston wrote: >> Oh, do drone on. Google it and see how many times you have beaten this >> lame story to death. You left out the color and type of shirt you were >> wearing during this amazing "exploit." > >I am no longer going to waste my time, and others by responding to you. >Later, dipstick. I just got served with a lawsuit by Baka. He's suing me for "Definition of Character."                                               Date: 12 Jun 2007 10:18:25 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:46:49 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> I had a few too many beers when I posted that one (1) post about the >> tricycle so he thinks I am making up all the other stuff that I have >> actually done. Like I said, live life, don't cower from it. > > Once in your posting career you had "a few too many beers" before you > hit the keyboard. To funny, Billy. Bill has said he doesn't drink. Bill has said the trike claim was a /troll/. Bill has said he was dead serious, but /maybe/ was wrong (like, 55 mph really being 12! LOL ). To sum up, Bill says a lot of stuff. Discard 99% of it and the rest is just bigotry and (yet more) bullshit. BUT HE IS FUNNY!                                                 Date: 13 Jun 2007 13:02:40 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Bill Sornson wrote: > R Brickston wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:46:49 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >>> I had a few too many beers when I posted that one (1) post about the >>> tricycle so he thinks I am making up all the other stuff that I have >>> actually done. Like I said, live life, don't cower from it. >> Once in your posting career you had "a few too many beers" before you >> hit the keyboard. To funny, Billy. > > Bill has said he doesn't drink. Bill has said the trike claim was a > /troll/. Bill has said he was dead serious, but /maybe/ was wrong (like, 55 > mph really being 12! LOL ). > > To sum up, Bill says a lot of stuff. Discard 99% of it and the rest is just > bigotry and (yet more) bullshit. > > BUT HE IS FUNNY! > > You should get a room with Brickston. You deserve each other.                                           Date: 11 Jun 2007 20:12:13 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <ornr63t8sosjdk5i0mf6enspu1eqt3830a@4ax.com >, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:53:27 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > >In article <s9pq639nie3ggn16sumcb3l0mc2kldht0l@4ax.com>, > > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara > >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, > >> > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >R Brickston wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 > >> >> >>> in 5th. Bill Baka > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, > >> >> >> 162, 162.5 or 165. > >> >> >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car > >> >> >and someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The > >> >> >best I could tell from the tach being a little over twice the > >> >> >80 MPH speed of just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then > >> >> >6,000 would be twice that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 > >> >> >and 165 depending on tire expansion from the RPM. The speedos > >> >> >back then stopped at 85 so I had to mark down the RPM and > >> >> >calculate. It was somewhere in the category of "Way too fast". > >> >> >Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless you are afraid > >> >> >of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 zone. > >> >> >You are seriously pathetic. > >> >> > >> >> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each > >> >> individually definitive. > >> > > >> >And you think these differences are significant for what reason? > >> >Other than picking nits? > >> > >> 1. As far as your ability to see the context... WHOOOSH...; > > > >The context is that you don't like Bill, or at least you don't like > >what he posts and you take it personally. That context is easy to > >see, although you seem to have overlooked it. > > Forgetting the question of context, as you have, I simply don't enjoy > reading a newsgroup used by a windbag braggart making up fantasy > scenarios for their own self-aggrandizement. I would venture that > others may feel the same. That what may appear to you as a personal > issue is not. Perhaps you are looking at it from your own > perspective. All we have is our own perspective, of course. That perspective can be broadened to an extent but our ability to adopt someone else's perspective is limited. As far as reading "windbag braggarts" my advice would be: don't. I use the killfile in my newsreader to remove a number of those from the message queue and my Usenet experience is thereby improved. The other options are to engage or not when you see the posts in the distribution tree. > >> 2. Goes to veracity or lack therof; > > > >Again, you are under the delusion that these minor differences are > >important for what reason? Would you think Bill's story more likely > >to be accurate if he wrote 162.37651 mph each time? All you are > >doing is picking nits in hopes that discredits your opponent, but it > >just makes you look like a petulant whiner. > > Well, if you're going to state someone is under a delusion, one would > think using the interrogative isn't going to be quite argumentative > enough. The context is obvious; if one performed the act claimed the > performance should be etched in memory and not later reported as four > different definitive claims in as many versions. The picking of nits, > perhaps, so far. However, coupled with Mr. Baka's penchant for > producing seemingly hundreds of grandiose, pretentious and poorly > written "accomplishments," it may be more apparent that it's not > about this "160 mph" nit in particular. So he's picked a range from "160+" to "165." Is that worth fussing about? If he'd come up with a range of 145 to 180, that seems to me like it would be a significant disparity. I suppose everyone has varying degrees of sensitivity to this sort of thing. > >> 3.Fuck Off. > > > >Speaking of veracity... You kiss your momma with that mouth? > > "Fuck Off" retracted. Thank you.                                             Date: 12 Jun 2007 00:49:36 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <ornr63t8sosjdk5i0mf6enspu1eqt3830a@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:53:27 -0500, Tim McNamara >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >>> In article <s9pq639nie3ggn16sumcb3l0mc2kldht0l@4ax.com>, >>> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara >>>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, >>>>> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> R Brickston wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 >>>>>>>>> in 5th. Bill Baka >>>>>>>> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, >>>>>>>> 162, 162.5 or 165. >>>>>>> Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car >>>>>>> and someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The >>>>>>> best I could tell from the tach being a little over twice the >>>>>>> 80 MPH speed of just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then >>>>>>> 6,000 would be twice that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 >>>>>>> and 165 depending on tire expansion from the RPM. The speedos >>>>>>> back then stopped at 85 so I had to mark down the RPM and >>>>>>> calculate. It was somewhere in the category of "Way too fast". >>>>>>> Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless you are afraid >>>>>>> of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 zone. >>>>>>> You are seriously pathetic. >>>>>> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >>>>>> individually definitive. >>>>> And you think these differences are significant for what reason? >>>>> Other than picking nits? >>>> 1. As far as your ability to see the context... WHOOOSH...; >>> The context is that you don't like Bill, or at least you don't like >>> what he posts and you take it personally. That context is easy to >>> see, although you seem to have overlooked it. >> Forgetting the question of context, as you have, I simply don't enjoy >> reading a newsgroup used by a windbag braggart making up fantasy >> scenarios for their own self-aggrandizement. I would venture that >> others may feel the same. That what may appear to you as a personal >> issue is not. Perhaps you are looking at it from your own >> perspective. > > All we have is our own perspective, of course. That perspective can be > broadened to an extent but our ability to adopt someone else's > perspective is limited. As far as reading "windbag braggarts" my advice > would be: don't. I use the killfile in my newsreader to remove a > number of those from the message queue and my Usenet experience is > thereby improved. The other options are to engage or not when you see > the posts in the distribution tree. Anyone who actually knows me can verify most of this but they don't frequent news groups, so, believe me, or don't believe me, free world, sort of. > >>>> 2. Goes to veracity or lack therof; >>> Again, you are under the delusion that these minor differences are >>> important for what reason? Would you think Bill's story more likely >>> to be accurate if he wrote 162.37651 mph each time? All you are >>> doing is picking nits in hopes that discredits your opponent, but it >>> just makes you look like a petulant whiner. >> Well, if you're going to state someone is under a delusion, one would >> think using the interrogative isn't going to be quite argumentative >> enough. The context is obvious; if one performed the act claimed the >> performance should be etched in memory and not later reported as four >> different definitive claims in as many versions. The picking of nits, >> perhaps, so far. However, coupled with Mr. Baka's penchant for >> producing seemingly hundreds of grandiose, pretentious and poorly >> written "accomplishments," it may be more apparent that it's not >> about this "160 mph" nit in particular. > > So he's picked a range from "160+" to "165." Is that worth fussing > about? If he'd come up with a range of 145 to 180, that seems to me > like it would be a significant disparity. I suppose everyone has > varying degrees of sensitivity to this sort of thing. It really was within that 5 MPH range and enough to scare me out of trying it again. I did it once, period. BFD. Bill Baka > >>>> 3.Fuck Off. >>> Speaking of veracity... You kiss your momma with that mouth? >> "Fuck Off" retracted. > > Thank you.                                               Date: 12 Jun 2007 13:28:49 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:49:36 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >Anyone who actually knows me can verify most of this but they don't >frequent news groups, so, believe me, or don't believe me, free world, >sort of. Well, I would find it hard for your imaginary friends to use a keyboard. Maybe you could get a mystic to channel them. >It really was within that 5 MPH range and enough to scare me out of >trying it again. I did it once, period. BFD. >Bill Baka It must be a BFD, you've posted time after time, for years.                                             Date: 12 Jun 2007 01:45:10 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:12:13 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <ornr63t8sosjdk5i0mf6enspu1eqt3830a@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:53:27 -0500, Tim McNamara >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <s9pq639nie3ggn16sumcb3l0mc2kldht0l@4ax.com>, >> > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara >> >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, >> >> > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >R Brickston wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 >> >> >> >>> in 5th. Bill Baka >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, >> >> >> >> 162, 162.5 or 165. >> >> >> >Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car >> >> >> >and someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The >> >> >> >best I could tell from the tach being a little over twice the >> >> >> >80 MPH speed of just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then >> >> >> >6,000 would be twice that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 >> >> >> >and 165 depending on tire expansion from the RPM. The speedos >> >> >> >back then stopped at 85 so I had to mark down the RPM and >> >> >> >calculate. It was somewhere in the category of "Way too fast". >> >> >> >Bill Baka You really should get a life, unless you are afraid >> >> >> >of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 zone. >> >> >> >You are seriously pathetic. >> >> >> >> >> >> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >> >> >> individually definitive. >> >> > >> >> >And you think these differences are significant for what reason? >> >> >Other than picking nits? >> >> >> >> 1. As far as your ability to see the context... WHOOOSH...; >> > >> >The context is that you don't like Bill, or at least you don't like >> >what he posts and you take it personally. That context is easy to >> >see, although you seem to have overlooked it. >> >> Forgetting the question of context, as you have, I simply don't enjoy >> reading a newsgroup used by a windbag braggart making up fantasy >> scenarios for their own self-aggrandizement. I would venture that >> others may feel the same. That what may appear to you as a personal >> issue is not. Perhaps you are looking at it from your own >> perspective. > >All we have is our own perspective, of course. That perspective can be >broadened to an extent but our ability to adopt someone else's >perspective is limited. As far as reading "windbag braggarts" my advice >would be: don't. I use the killfile in my newsreader to remove a >number of those from the message queue and my Usenet experience is >thereby improved. The other options are to engage or not when you see >the posts in the distribution tree. > >> >> 2. Goes to veracity or lack therof; >> > >> >Again, you are under the delusion that these minor differences are >> >important for what reason? Would you think Bill's story more likely >> >to be accurate if he wrote 162.37651 mph each time? All you are >> >doing is picking nits in hopes that discredits your opponent, but it >> >just makes you look like a petulant whiner. >> >> Well, if you're going to state someone is under a delusion, one would >> think using the interrogative isn't going to be quite argumentative >> enough. The context is obvious; if one performed the act claimed the >> performance should be etched in memory and not later reported as four >> different definitive claims in as many versions. The picking of nits, >> perhaps, so far. However, coupled with Mr. Baka's penchant for >> producing seemingly hundreds of grandiose, pretentious and poorly >> written "accomplishments," it may be more apparent that it's not >> about this "160 mph" nit in particular. > >So he's picked a range from "160+" to "165." Is that worth fussing >about? If he'd come up with a range of 145 to 180, that seems to me >like it would be a significant disparity. I suppose everyone has >varying degrees of sensitivity to this sort of thing. Tim, did you read what I wrote? I have to think you did and understand the context. Surprisingly, for a procedure oriented writer, you're now once again arguing the specifics of words written; a practically identical reiteration of what you already stated. It reeks of a brush off, obvious in its application as well as intent. In any event, since a two way argumentative discourse is apparently not an option for you and seeing how this entire Brickston/Baka thing bothers you so, the only recourse is to use your very own suggestion (one can imagine that virtue makes it irrefutable). Customized for your indulgence: As far as reading my irritating posts, my advice would be: don't. Do use the killfile in your newsreader to remove any number of these from the message queue and your Usenet experience will thereby be vastly improved. The best thing to do is definitely not engage when you see any posts from that terrible Brickston [add expletive(s) here] in the distribution tree. >> >> 3.Fuck Off. >> > >> >Speaking of veracity... You kiss your momma with that mouth? >> >> "Fuck Off" retracted. > >Thank you. You're quite welcome.                                               Date: 11 Jun 2007 23:10:22 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <aqsr639g3rkc38js26lia33govcgp6spuv@4ax.com >, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote: <snipping lots of stuff > > >So he's picked a range from "160+" to "165." Is that worth fussing > >about? If he'd come up with a range of 145 to 180, that seems to me > >like it would be a significant disparity. I suppose everyone has > >varying degrees of sensitivity to this sort of thing. > > Tim, did you read what I wrote? I have to think you did and > understand the context. Surprisingly, for a procedure oriented > writer, you're now once again arguing the specifics of words written; > a practically identical reiteration of what you already stated. It > reeks of a brush off, obvious in its application as well as intent. That wasn't my intent in this paragraph (although my tone was not as well mannered in some other posts in reply to you; still working on that particular character flaw among many). I was trying to point out- obviously poorly- that the significance of the disparity matters. I'm not bugged by a 5 mph range as given by Bill; had it been a 25 mph range, then I'd question it too. Maybe it's just that I'm an middle aged old coot whose memory is not as sharp as he'd like to pretend, so I too do not post numbers from my past as consistently precisely as would be optimal. If you were to ask me how many miles I ride per year, I'd say 5,000-6,000. That's like a 20% discrepancy. Somewhere on a spreadsheet I keep track of this and could tell you my average mileage by month and by year over the past 15 years with pretty good precision... but my off-the-cuff recollection of it is 5,000-6,000 miles a year. As a result, I'm just inclined to cut him some slack. Perhaps your tolerance for such discrepancies is just lower than mine, or perhaps it's just something about Bill's posts that irritates you and you wouldn't be bothered by similar things from someone else. I dunno. Hopefully that clears things up as far as how I am thinking about this part of the discussion. > In any event, since a two way argumentative discourse is apparently > not an option for you and seeing how this entire Brickston/Baka thing > bothers you so, the only recourse is to use your very own suggestion > (one can imagine that virtue makes it irrefutable). Customized for > your indulgence: And reasonably so. Sauce, goose, gander as the saying goes. > As far as reading my irritating posts, my advice would be: don't. Do > use the killfile in your newsreader to remove any number of these > from the message queue and your Usenet experience will thereby be > vastly improved. The best thing to do is definitely not engage when > you see any posts from that terrible Brickston [add expletive(s) > here] in the distribution tree. I don't see that R. Brickston fellow as "terrible" nor as an [expletive deleted]. Any more than I see Bill Baka as terrible or an [expletive deleted]. Bill and I have crossed each other in the past, too.                                                 Date: 12 Jun 2007 15:01:21 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <aqsr639g3rkc38js26lia33govcgp6spuv@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > > <snipping lots of stuff> > >>> So he's picked a range from "160+" to "165." Is that worth fussing >>> about? If he'd come up with a range of 145 to 180, that seems to me >>> like it would be a significant disparity. I suppose everyone has >>> varying degrees of sensitivity to this sort of thing. >> Tim, did you read what I wrote? I have to think you did and >> understand the context. Surprisingly, for a procedure oriented >> writer, you're now once again arguing the specifics of words written; >> a practically identical reiteration of what you already stated. It >> reeks of a brush off, obvious in its application as well as intent. > > That wasn't my intent in this paragraph (although my tone was not as > well mannered in some other posts in reply to you; still working on that > particular character flaw among many). I was trying to point out- > obviously poorly- that the significance of the disparity matters. I'm > not bugged by a 5 mph range as given by Bill; had it been a 25 mph > range, then I'd question it too. > > Maybe it's just that I'm an middle aged old coot whose memory is not as > sharp as he'd like to pretend, so I too do not post numbers from my past > as consistently precisely as would be optimal. If you were to ask me > how many miles I ride per year, I'd say 5,000-6,000. That's like a 20% > discrepancy. Somewhere on a spreadsheet I keep track of this and could > tell you my average mileage by month and by year over the past 15 years > with pretty good precision... but my off-the-cuff recollection of it is > 5,000-6,000 miles a year. As a result, I'm just inclined to cut him > some slack. Perhaps your tolerance for such discrepancies is just lower > than mine, or perhaps it's just something about Bill's posts that > irritates you and you wouldn't be bothered by similar things from > someone else. I dunno. > > Hopefully that clears things up as far as how I am thinking about this > part of the discussion. > >> In any event, since a two way argumentative discourse is apparently >> not an option for you and seeing how this entire Brickston/Baka thing >> bothers you so, the only recourse is to use your very own suggestion >> (one can imagine that virtue makes it irrefutable). Customized for >> your indulgence: > > And reasonably so. Sauce, goose, gander as the saying goes. > >> As far as reading my irritating posts, my advice would be: don't. Do >> use the killfile in your newsreader to remove any number of these >> from the message queue and your Usenet experience will thereby be >> vastly improved. The best thing to do is definitely not engage when >> you see any posts from that terrible Brickston [add expletive(s) >> here] in the distribution tree. > > I don't see that R. Brickston fellow as "terrible" nor as an [expletive > deleted]. Any more than I see Bill Baka as terrible or an [expletive > deleted]. Bill and I have crossed each other in the past, too. Yes, We have, but it was generally at least sort of on topic. Brickston is attacking for no good reason except that I am here. Bill Baka                                                   Date: 12 Jun 2007 20:28:20 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:01:21 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >I try not to be rude, but if you notice every post of his is aimed >at attacking me. Sorry, Bill Baka >Yes, >We have, but it was generally at least sort of on topic. >Brickston is attacking for no good reason except that I am here. >Bill Baka You can probably pick up a violin cheap on Ebay.                                                 Date: 12 Jun 2007 05:53:34 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:10:22 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <aqsr639g3rkc38js26lia33govcgp6spuv@4ax.com>, > R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: > ><snipping lots of stuff> > >> >So he's picked a range from "160+" to "165." Is that worth fussing >> >about? If he'd come up with a range of 145 to 180, that seems to me >> >like it would be a significant disparity. I suppose everyone has >> >varying degrees of sensitivity to this sort of thing. >> >> Tim, did you read what I wrote? I have to think you did and >> understand the context. Surprisingly, for a procedure oriented >> writer, you're now once again arguing the specifics of words written; >> a practically identical reiteration of what you already stated. It >> reeks of a brush off, obvious in its application as well as intent. > >That wasn't my intent in this paragraph (although my tone was not as >well mannered in some other posts in reply to you; still working on that >particular character flaw among many). I was trying to point out- >obviously poorly- that the significance of the disparity matters. I'm >not bugged by a 5 mph range as given by Bill; had it been a 25 mph >range, then I'd question it too. > >Maybe it's just that I'm an middle aged old coot whose memory is not as >sharp as he'd like to pretend, so I too do not post numbers from my past >as consistently precisely as would be optimal. If you were to ask me >how many miles I ride per year, I'd say 5,000-6,000. That's like a 20% >discrepancy. Somewhere on a spreadsheet I keep track of this and could >tell you my average mileage by month and by year over the past 15 years >with pretty good precision... but my off-the-cuff recollection of it is >5,000-6,000 miles a year. As a result, I'm just inclined to cut him >some slack. Perhaps your tolerance for such discrepancies is just lower >than mine, or perhaps it's just something about Bill's posts that >irritates you and you wouldn't be bothered by similar things from >someone else. I dunno. > >Hopefully that clears things up as far as how I am thinking about this >part of the discussion. A third iteration of the same argument. You've missed the point, perhaps it was inartfully written. Unlike your mileage example, Baka's claim here is out of the ordinary. Many, many of his claims are out of the ordinary. So I see an outlandish claim compounded when it is presented multiple times in different ng's and with different versions of the specific mph. The latent excuse is given that it is an approximation, yet we have 162.5 as one of the versions, along with the others. Same thing with the out of the ordinary Rambler gas mileage claim; multiple versions in multiple ng's with multiple numeric claims. Same thing with the tricycle, a feat only retracted because logic was argued from ng contributors forcing him to admit something more palatable sounding. The main premise here is Baka makes outlandish claims** often, if not daily. I called him on it and at my whim, will continue to do so, as I have done in the past. In fact, I find it rather amusing to debunk this braggart. If someone finds fault with that, there is the mentioned method of killing off posts of anyone who dares an attempt at preventing their hero from his hourly pontifications. This will give his numerous fans the opportunity to sit back, read and be dazzled by the mesmerizing true life exploits of the remarkable and amazing Bill Baka on an unfettered basis. **Even Baka's simple claims are bizarre. Can one really believe Baka's protestation that it was difficult to discover the rpm of a NASCAR racing engine? I put in the quite obvious terms: "NASCAR engine rpm" and like Beam (who used "specs" instead of "rpm") got it on the first try, first link; elapsed time under 10 seconds. Am I some kind of Google super wizard? I think not. > >> In any event, since a two way argumentative discourse is apparently >> not an option for you and seeing how this entire Brickston/Baka thing >> bothers you so, the only recourse is to use your very own suggestion >> (one can imagine that virtue makes it irrefutable). Customized for >> your indulgence: > >And reasonably so. Sauce, goose, gander as the saying goes. > >> As far as reading my irritating posts, my advice would be: don't. Do >> use the killfile in your newsreader to remove any number of these >> from the message queue and your Usenet experience will thereby be >> vastly improved. The best thing to do is definitely not engage when >> you see any posts from that terrible Brickston [add expletive(s) >> here] in the distribution tree. > >I don't see that R. Brickston fellow as "terrible" nor as an [expletive >deleted]. Any more than I see Bill Baka as terrible or an [expletive >deleted]. Bill and I have crossed each other in the past, too.                                       Date: 11 Jun 2007 18:21:39 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:43:32 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >> In article <ta9q63hi6r7t7j2ff2ol3pugjrqakfcv70@4ax.com>, >> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:52:02 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> R Brickston wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:13:59 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Why? My Mustang was the same way. 162 in 4th, and about 120 in >>>>>> 5th. Bill Baka >>>>> Depending on which version of this fantasy, it was 160+, 162, >>>>> 162.5 or 165. >>>> Poor Brickshit. I'll bet you wet yourself if you are in a car and >>>> someone goes 75 MPH. You are a sorry sack of shit. The best I could >>>> tell from the tach being a little over twice the 80 MPH speed of >>>> just under 80 MPH at 3,000 in direct (4) then 6,000 would be twice >>>> that 160 MPH, and 6,200 and between 162 and 165 depending on tire >>>> expansion from the RPM. The speedos back then stopped at 85 so I had >>>> to mark down the RPM and calculate. It was somewhere in the category >>>> of "Way too fast". Bill Baka. You really should get a life, unless >>>> you are afraid of the big bad cop giving you a ticket for 26 in a 25 >>>> zone. You are seriously pathetic. >>> Each of your claims of 160+, 162, 162.5 and 165, were each >>> individually definitive. >> And you think these differences are significant for what reason? Other >> than picking nits? > > 1. As far as your ability to see the context... WHOOOSH...; > > 2. Goes to veracity or lack therof; > > 3.Fuck Off. I think that's what everyone is thinking about you, sorry sack of shit.                       Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:49:50 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Drive shaft jim beam wrote: > Bill wrote: >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> In article <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, >>>> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be >>>>> to hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, >>>>> then at 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's >>>>> pretty loafy. >>>> Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret this makes no >>>> sense to me. What is the red-line speed for each gear in a Corvette? >>> >>> Well, I assumed top speed was 180 mph, achieved at 6000 rpm, and that >>> that was redline for the engine. Redline is a function of engine >>> speed, not gearing, so it's the same in all gears, with a "but" I'll >>> explain in a moment. >>> >>> The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower >>> model) are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and a >>> claimed top speed of 198 mph. >>> >>> http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h >>> >>> tml >>> >>> This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! >>> Both of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph >>> at 6500 rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this >>> suggests that different gearing could push the top speed a little >>> higher, but to no practical purpose). >>> >>> To take Bill's question of how long-legged sixth is, the car can only >>> hit a mere 160 mph at 3600 rpm in sixth. This means that in sixth >>> gear, at 60 mph, the engine would be turning somewhere below 1500 >>> rpm. 1500 rpm would be about 67 mph. >> >> 66.666MPH to be exact. Over gearing it still more to about 1,000 RPM >> would take it into the 30 MPG area. > > rubbish. > >> The difference is still mostly piston losses unless they have it >> cammed such that it runs like crap under 3,000 RPM. >> >> One could argue for taller gearing, but I >>> suspect that the people hoping to hit 30 mpg in a car that turns >>> sub-12 quarters are not a very large market. >>> >>> EPA highway mileage is 26 mpg, which may be about as good as 500 >>> horspower cars get. >>> >>> I'm looking for similar numbers for the base model. >>> >> This part of the thread has gone off to cars now, but those 'economy' >> cars that brag about 32 MPG are still laughable to me. 40 to 45 MPG is >> easily within reach if they would put another gear in for freeway >> cruising. The motor would have to put out more torque at lower RPM but >> that is one of the secrets of diesel engines getting such good mileage. > > incorrect. it all it too were higher gears make that "if all it took" > to make more fuel economy, > everybody would have done that a century ago. basically, you have to > match output to wind resistance at the given cruising speed, given that > you also want to avoid lugging the engine. that's why ryan's > over-driven vette is slower in top gear than it is in 5th - insufficient > output at lower rpm's to match wind resistance. trying to "force" > higher output at too low rpm's /increases/ gas consumption, not lowers it. > > you've got some serious learning to do                         Date: 10 Jun 2007 21:26:08 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft jim beam wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Bill wrote: >>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>> In article <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, >>>>> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to >>>>>> be to hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in >>>>>> sixth, then at 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. >>>>>> That's pretty loafy. >>>>> Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret this makes >>>>> no sense to me. What is the red-line speed for each gear in a >>>>> Corvette? >>>> >>>> Well, I assumed top speed was 180 mph, achieved at 6000 rpm, and >>>> that that was redline for the engine. Redline is a function of >>>> engine speed, not gearing, so it's the same in all gears, with a >>>> "but" I'll explain in a moment. >>>> >>>> The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower >>>> model) are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and a >>>> claimed top speed of 198 mph. >>>> >>>> http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h >>>> >>>> tml >>>> >>>> This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! >>>> Both of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph >>>> at 6500 rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this >>>> suggests that different gearing could push the top speed a little >>>> higher, but to no practical purpose). >>>> >>>> To take Bill's question of how long-legged sixth is, the car can >>>> only hit a mere 160 mph at 3600 rpm in sixth. This means that in >>>> sixth gear, at 60 mph, the engine would be turning somewhere below >>>> 1500 rpm. 1500 rpm would be about 67 mph. >>> >>> 66.666MPH to be exact. Over gearing it still more to about 1,000 RPM >>> would take it into the 30 MPG area. >> >> rubbish. >> >>> The difference is still mostly piston losses unless they have it >>> cammed such that it runs like crap under 3,000 RPM. >>> >>> One could argue for taller gearing, but I >>>> suspect that the people hoping to hit 30 mpg in a car that turns >>>> sub-12 quarters are not a very large market. >>>> >>>> EPA highway mileage is 26 mpg, which may be about as good as 500 >>>> horspower cars get. >>>> >>>> I'm looking for similar numbers for the base model. >>>> >>> This part of the thread has gone off to cars now, but those 'economy' >>> cars that brag about 32 MPG are still laughable to me. 40 to 45 MPG >>> is easily within reach if they would put another gear in for freeway >>> cruising. The motor would have to put out more torque at lower RPM >>> but that is one of the secrets of diesel engines getting such good >>> mileage. >> >> incorrect. it all it too were higher gears > > make that "if all it took" Some bitch, I made a typo. The spell checker is not a syntax checker. Of course I am not writing for publication, as you may have noticed on some other posts that I am taking some liberties with the language today. Bill Baka > >> to make more fuel economy, everybody would have done that a century >> ago. basically, you have to match output to wind resistance at the >> given cruising speed, given that you also want to avoid lugging the >> engine. that's why ryan's over-driven vette is slower in top gear >> than it is in 5th - insufficient output at lower rpm's to match wind >> resistance. trying to "force" higher output at too low rpm's >> /increases/ gas consumption, not lowers it. >> >> you've got some serious learning to do                   Date: 10 Jun 2007 19:09:45 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <rcousine-8ACA72.17110810062007@news.telus.net >, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote: > In article <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > In article > > <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, > > Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: > > > > > The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be to > > > hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, then at > > > 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's pretty loafy. > > > > Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret > > this makes no sense to me. What is the red-line speed > > for each gear in a Corvette? > > Well, I assumed top speed was 180 mph, achieved at 6000 rpm, and that > that was redline for the engine. Redline is a function of engine speed, > not gearing, so it's the same in all gears, with a "but" I'll explain in > a moment. > > The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower model) > are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and a claimed > top speed of 198 mph. > > http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h > tml > > This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! Both > of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph at 6500 > rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this suggests that > different gearing could push the top speed a little higher, but to no > practical purpose). > > To take Bill's question of how long-legged sixth is, the car can only > hit a mere 160 mph at 3600 rpm in sixth. This means that in sixth gear, > at 60 mph, the engine would be turning somewhere below 1500 rpm. 1500 > rpm would be about 67 mph. One could argue for taller gearing, but I > suspect that the people hoping to hit 30 mpg in a car that turns sub-12 > quarters are not a very large market. > > EPA highway mileage is 26 mpg, which may be about as good as 500 > horspower cars get. > > I'm looking for similar numbers for the base model. I was not clear. For each gear what speed does the car travel at when the tachometer registers the manufacturer's recommended maximum engine speed? -- Michael Press                     Date: 11 Jun 2007 06:18:38 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft Michael Press writes: > I was not clear. For each gear what speed does the car travel at > when the tachometer registers the manufacturer's recommended maximum > engine speed? Forget it. There's no value in data on antiques, and especially "sports cars", an anachronism, now that road holding is understood (roll center, suspension, brakes and steering) so that new cars all handle better than the old sports cars sold as having great handling. My Volvo station wagon handles better than my old Porsche 356 that I had when I worked there in the 1960's. It is apparent that the only difference among cars today is CG height and wheelbase as far as handling goes. GM is living in the past and emulates Harley Davidson, with antique tractor engines that use gearing to get the wheels to turn fast enough to achieve speeds that no one drives. I haven't seen a sports car go nearly as fast as some small sedans when I bicycle in the Santa Cruz mountains. I have never seen a fast Corvette in the mountains, anywhere. Jobst Brandt                       Date: 11 Jun 2007 10:04:01 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On 11 Jun 2007 06:18:38 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Michael Press writes: > >> I was not clear. For each gear what speed does the car travel at >> when the tachometer registers the manufacturer's recommended maximum >> engine speed? > >Forget it. There's no value in data on antiques, and especially >"sports cars", an anachronism, now that road holding is understood >(roll center, suspension, brakes and steering) so that new cars all >handle better than the old sports cars sold as having great handling. >My Volvo station wagon handles better than my old Porsche 356 that I >had when I worked there in the 1960's. It is apparent that the only >difference among cars today is CG height and wheelbase as far as >handling goes. > >GM is living in the past and emulates Harley Davidson, with antique >tractor engines that use gearing to get the wheels to turn fast enough >to achieve speeds that no one drives. I haven't seen a sports car go >nearly as fast as some small sedans when I bicycle in the Santa Cruz >mountains. I have never seen a fast Corvette in the mountains, >anywhere. > >Jobst Brandt I remember reading about the first 911's had lead weight added, at the factory in the 12th hour, down low in the front to make them drivable. BTW, GM may be a dinosaur, but has some fairly sophisticated 4 and 6 cylinder DOHC engines available.                       Date: 11 Jun 2007 02:55:45 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Michael Press writes: > >> I was not clear. For each gear what speed does the car travel at >> when the tachometer registers the manufacturer's recommended maximum >> engine speed? > > Forget it. There's no value in data on antiques, and especially > "sports cars", an anachronism, now that road holding is understood > (roll center, suspension, brakes and steering) so that new cars all > handle better than the old sports cars sold as having great handling. > My Volvo station wagon handles better than my old Porsche 356 that I > had when I worked there in the 1960's. It is apparent that the only > difference among cars today is CG height and wheelbase as far as > handling goes. > > GM is living in the past and emulates Harley Davidson, with antique > tractor engines that use gearing to get the wheels to turn fast enough > to achieve speeds that no one drives. I haven't seen a sports car go > nearly as fast as some small sedans when I bicycle in the Santa Cruz > mountains. I have never seen a fast Corvette in the mountains, > anywhere. > > Jobst Brandt That could be because Corvettes are cop magnets. I know my bright red Mustang GT 5.0 was. A Sacramento cop followed me through 4 freeway changes downtown once and I finally pulled over, rolled down my window, and yelled at him "If you want a good look he it is, so you can stop following me.". He just looked like I deprived him of a ticket and sped away. It was a pain driving at exactly 55 MPH with him on my tail though. Bill Baka                         Date: 11 Jun 2007 10:34:33 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:55:45 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >> Michael Press writes: >> >>> I was not clear. For each gear what speed does the car travel at >>> when the tachometer registers the manufacturer's recommended maximum >>> engine speed? >> >> Forget it. There's no value in data on antiques, and especially >> "sports cars", an anachronism, now that road holding is understood >> (roll center, suspension, brakes and steering) so that new cars all >> handle better than the old sports cars sold as having great handling. >> My Volvo station wagon handles better than my old Porsche 356 that I >> had when I worked there in the 1960's. It is apparent that the only >> difference among cars today is CG height and wheelbase as far as >> handling goes. >> >> GM is living in the past and emulates Harley Davidson, with antique >> tractor engines that use gearing to get the wheels to turn fast enough >> to achieve speeds that no one drives. I haven't seen a sports car go >> nearly as fast as some small sedans when I bicycle in the Santa Cruz >> mountains. I have never seen a fast Corvette in the mountains, >> anywhere. >> >> Jobst Brandt > >That could be because Corvettes are cop magnets. >I know my bright red Mustang GT 5.0 was. A Sacramento cop followed me >through 4 freeway changes downtown once and I finally pulled over, >rolled down my window, and yelled at him "If you want a good look he it >is, so you can stop following me.". >He just looked like I deprived him of a ticket and sped away. >It was a pain driving at exactly 55 MPH with him on my tail though. >Bill Baka Fantasy Land...                           Date: 11 Jun 2007 11:11:33 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:55:45 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> That could be because Corvettes are cop magnets. >> I know my bright red Mustang GT 5.0 was. A Sacramento cop followed me >> through 4 freeway changes downtown once and I finally pulled over, >> rolled down my window, and yelled at him "If you want a good look he it >> is, so you can stop following me.". >> He just looked like I deprived him of a ticket and sped away. >> It was a pain driving at exactly 55 MPH with him on my tail though. >> Bill Baka > > Fantasy Land... Ok, moronic wonder boy. Try driving a bright red performance car in front of a cop just dying to give out a ticket and see how long he follows you. 4 freeway changes and ten miles behind me was not just a coincidence. It's hardly fantasy land to drive at exactly the speed limit with a cop so obviously on your tail. Your piss ant brain is malfunctioning again. Bill Baka                       Date: 11 Jun 2007 01:58:55 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <466ce93e$0$14090$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Michael Press writes: > > > I was not clear. For each gear what speed does the car travel at > > when the tachometer registers the manufacturer's recommended maximum > > engine speed? > > Forget it. There's no value in data on antiques, and especially > "sports cars", an anachronism, now that road holding is understood > (roll center, suspension, brakes and steering) so that new cars all > handle better than the old sports cars sold as having great handling. > My Volvo station wagon handles better than my old Porsche 356 that I > had when I worked there in the 1960's. It is apparent that the only > difference among cars today is CG height and wheelbase as far as > handling goes. Yes, I know. My recent sedan acquits itself credibly in the turns, and never feels the least bit skittish at speed. It is quite ordinary with zero appeal to those who buy performance, yet it came from the factory with the best H series tires to be had. -- Michael Press                     Date: 11 Jun 2007 05:35:41 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <rubrum-70E503.19094510062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <rcousine-8ACA72.17110810062007@news.telus.net>, > Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: > > > In article <rubrum-AA93AA.14035610062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, > > > Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be to > > > > hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, then at > > > > 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's pretty loafy. > > > > > > Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret > > > this makes no sense to me. What is the red-line speed > > > for each gear in a Corvette? > > The actual numbers for a Corvette Z06 (the crazy 505 horsepower model) > > are a redline of 7000 rpm, horsepower peak of 6300 rpm, and a claimed > > top speed of 198 mph. > > http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9991/chevrolet-corvette-z06-page4.h tml > > > > This Corvette actually hits its top speed in 5th gear, not sixth! Both > > of those gears are overdriven ratios, and top speed is 198 mph at 6500 > > rpm in 5th (below redline, above the power peak; this suggests that > > different gearing could push the top speed a little higher, but to no > > practical purpose). > I was not clear. For each gear what speed does the car > travel at when the tachometer registers the > manufacturer's recommended maximum engine speed? C&D has a chart of that in the linked article: Transmission: 6-speed manual Final-drive ratio: 3.42:1, limited slip Gear - Ratio - Mph/1000 rpm - Speed in gears I - 2.66 - 8.4 - 59 mph (7000 rpm) II - 1.78 - 12.6 - 88 mph (7000 rpm) III - 1.30 - 17.3 - 121 mph (7000 rpm) IV - 1.00 - 22.4 - 157 mph (7000 rpm) V - 0.74 - 30.3 - 198 mph (6500 rpm) VI - 0.50 - 44.9 - 160 mph (3600 rpm) Redline is 7000 (though peak power is at 6300 rpm), but the engine cannot reach that speed in either of the top two gears. Sixth is geared such that the car would hit about 300 mph at redline, for which it would require a lot more than 505 horsepower. The article also includes this useful line: Drag area, Cd (0.34) x frontal area (22.3 sq ft): 7.6 sq ft From which several people here could probably figure out exactly how many horsepower it would take to get this car to 300 mph. Or, if you prefer, how fast such a vehicle could go if powered by 1 hp on level ground. No rolling resistance is assumed, -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos                 Date: 10 Jun 2007 22:40:18 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Michael Press wrote: > In article > <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, > Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: > >> The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be to >> hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, then at >> 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's pretty loafy. > > Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret > this makes no sense to me. What is the red-line speed > for each gear in a Corvette? > 6,000 RPM is about the most any car maker has put in a showroom. Professional builders can make them do 9,000 RPM, but they are one shot dragsters. NASCAR runs them at about 7,000 RPM but the one use and rebuild rule still holds there, too. Bill Baka                   Date: 10 Jun 2007 17:03:34 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Drive shaft Bill wrote: > Michael Press wrote: >> In article <rcousine-C75E0D.22221109062007@news.telus.net>, >> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: >> >>> The Corvettes are really long-legged in sixth gear (they have to be >>> to hit 180...). Assuming they hit that speed at redline in sixth, >>> then at 60 the 'vette is turning 2000 rpm in top gear. That's pretty >>> loafy. >> >> Would you supply details? The only way I can interpret this makes no >> sense to me. What is the red-line speed for each gear in a Corvette? >> > 6,000 RPM is about the most any car maker has put in a showroom. > Professional builders can make them do 9,000 RPM, but they are one shot > dragsters. NASCAR runs them at about 7,000 RPM but the one use and > rebuild rule still holds there, too. > Bill Baka               Date: 10 Jun 2007 12:32:52 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 05:22:11 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote: >In article <NOJai.13922$RX.6535@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >> > In article <1181396481.719357.34730@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, LOL! You go girl!             Date: 09 Jun 2007 23:12:44 From: Carl Sundquist Subject: Re: Drive shaft "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:NOJai.13922$RX.6535@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > > Again, if I recall correctly, most of the GM blocks in use up to 400 CI > are based on the 1955 Chevy V-8 and most parts interchange. The big blocks > were a whole 'nother animal, and I never could figure out why there was a > 454 and a 455 from the same company (GM). At least through the 70's, each of GM's divisions (including Cadillac) had their own engines They had few interchangable parts between engines, whether they were big or small block V-8s.               Date: 10 Jun 2007 22:27:01 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Carl Sundquist wrote: > > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:NOJai.13922$RX.6535@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... >> >> Again, if I recall correctly, most of the GM blocks in use up to 400 >> CI are based on the 1955 Chevy V-8 and most parts interchange. The big >> blocks were a whole 'nother animal, and I never could figure out why >> there was a 454 and a 455 from the same company (GM). > > At least through the 70's, each of GM's divisions (including Cadillac) > had their own engines They had few interchangable parts between engines, > whether they were big or small block V-8s. I meant the Chevies since 1955. GM only went really 'Corporate' in the early 80's. I had a 1952 Buick with a straight-8, a 1954 Buick with a V-8 and Dynaflow, a 1955 Custom Cadillac with a V-8 and 4 speed auto, etc.... until the late 70's when they started going to common parts to save money. These days most GM cars are the same but have different trim and nameplates, except Saturns. They totally murdered the Hum-Vee line with the H-2. It's a damned Chevy pick up chassis with fake Hummer bodywork. Look under an H-2 and you will see a straight rear axle and not the Hum-Vee's high clearance suspension. They have been turned into useless yuppie toy trucks. Bill Baka                 Date: 10 Jun 2007 18:11:24 From: Carl Sundquist Subject: Re: Drive shaft "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:VU_ai.14505$rO7.12303@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > Carl Sundquist wrote: >> >> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:NOJai.13922$RX.6535@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... >>> >>> Again, if I recall correctly, most of the GM blocks in use up to 400 CI >>> are based on the 1955 Chevy V-8 and most parts interchange. The big >>> blocks were a whole 'nother animal, and I never could figure out why >>> there was a 454 and a 455 from the same company (GM). >> >> At least through the 70's, each of GM's divisions (including Cadillac) >> had their own engines They had few interchangable parts between engines, >> whether they were big or small block V-8s. > > I meant the Chevies since 1955. GM only went really 'Corporate' in the > early 80's. I had a 1952 Buick with a straight-8, a 1954 Buick with a V-8 > and Dynaflow, a 1955 Custom Cadillac with a V-8 and 4 speed auto, etc.... > until the late 70's when they started going to common parts to save money. > These days most GM cars are the same but have different trim and > nameplates, except Saturns. Chevy never produced a 455 > They totally murdered the Hum-Vee line with the H-2. It's a damned Chevy > pick up chassis with fake Hummer bodywork. Look under an H-2 and you will > see a straight rear axle and not the Hum-Vee's high clearance suspension. > They have been turned into useless yuppie toy trucks. As much as I hate Hummers, I'm not sure you can blame GM for providing a product the marketplace wanted. Although I can't say I feel the same way about the "news" media and Paris Hilton and her ilk.                   Date: 10 Jun 2007 19:51:42 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft Carl Sundquist wrote: > > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:VU_ai.14505$rO7.12303@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >> Carl Sundquist wrote: >>> >>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:NOJai.13922$RX.6535@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... >>>> >>>> Again, if I recall correctly, most of the GM blocks in use up to 400 >>>> CI are based on the 1955 Chevy V-8 and most parts interchange. The >>>> big blocks were a whole 'nother animal, and I never could figure out >>>> why there was a 454 and a 455 from the same company (GM). >>> >>> At least through the 70's, each of GM's divisions (including >>> Cadillac) had their own engines They had few interchangable parts >>> between engines, whether they were big or small block V-8s. >> >> I meant the Chevies since 1955. GM only went really 'Corporate' in the >> early 80's. I had a 1952 Buick with a straight-8, a 1954 Buick with a >> V-8 and Dynaflow, a 1955 Custom Cadillac with a V-8 and 4 speed auto, >> etc.... until the late 70's when they started going to common parts to >> save money. These days most GM cars are the same but have different >> trim and nameplates, except Saturns. > > > Chevy never produced a 455 I know that. Even Buick and Oldsmobile had 455's and those two motors had different bores and strokes so there were different, non-interchangeable motors of the same cubic inch displacement. You could call me on it but I have an old Chilton's manual sitting right behind me and I looked, did a triple take, and they are different. > >> They totally murdered the Hum-Vee line with the H-2. It's a damned >> Chevy pick up chassis with fake Hummer bodywork. Look under an H-2 and >> you will see a straight rear axle and not the Hum-Vee's high clearance >> suspension. They have been turned into useless yuppie toy trucks. > > As much as I hate Hummers, I'm not sure you can blame GM for providing a > product the marketplace wanted. Although I can't say I feel the same way > about the "news" media and Paris Hilton and her ilk. I don't hate Hummers as long as they are purchased for off road use and not just yuppie toys for the more brains than money set. You could not give me an H-2 because I know damn well it is just another Tahoe pickup in a new suit to fool people, which it seems to be doing a good job of. That's just me, looking under the car to see what holds up the pretty sheet metal. Paris in jail. That's going to get a lot of air time that it does not deserve. Bill Baka           Date: 09 Jun 2007 16:04:23 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:30:30 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote: [snip] >Engines rarely scale in any sensible way. There are model aircraft >engines that would put your S2000 motor in the shade, >specific-output-wise. A 7.0l "S2000" would have fourteen cylinders; >Lamborghini's Murcielago had a 6.5l V12 that makes 640 horsepower. The >6.0l V12 in the Ferrari Enzo is also rated at 650 hp. > >I couldn't find any model airplane engine power output figures, but here >are some rear-wheel horsepower figures for motorcycles, all normally >aspirated: > >http://www.2fast4u.ca/horsepower_chart.html > >I'm not sure it has the highest specific output of any of the bikes >there, but note the ZX-10R that produces 163 rear-wheel horsepower from >a 1.0 l engine. That would scale to 1140 horsepower at 7 litres! Of >course, it would also scale to 326 horsepower at the 2l displacement of >your S2000, but as mentioned before, engines and their specific outputs >rarely scale in any sensible way. [snip] Dear Ryan, Model airplane engines displacing 5~10 cc's usually give power figures in how fast they spin a benchmark propeller. On 10~30% nitro, this 10.0 cc engine spins an 11x7 (width x blade-pitch) prop at 13,000 rpm http://www.redrockethobbies.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=EVOE0610&Show=TechSpecs Here are some props and photos, with a 34x12 meaning a 34 width and a 12 pitch: http://www.chiefaircraft.com/rcmsec/Models/Accessories/Props/XOARProps.html Smaller engines produce more power per cc, given the same attention to design and tuning. Forty years ago, the 1966 50cc Honda 4-stroke RC116 put out 16 horsepower at 21,500 rpm, 320 hp per liter: http://www.vf750fd.com/Joep_Kortekaas/1966.html#RC116 The exhaust valve weighed 6 grams. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 10 Jun 2007 03:03:10 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:30:30 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> > wrote: > > [snip] > >> Engines rarely scale in any sensible way. There are model aircraft >> engines that would put your S2000 motor in the shade, >> specific-output-wise. A 7.0l "S2000" would have fourteen cylinders; >> Lamborghini's Murcielago had a 6.5l V12 that makes 640 horsepower. The >> 6.0l V12 in the Ferrari Enzo is also rated at 650 hp. >> >> I couldn't find any model airplane engine power output figures, but here >> are some rear-wheel horsepower figures for motorcycles, all normally >> aspirated: >> >> http://www.2fast4u.ca/horsepower_chart.html >> >> I'm not sure it has the highest specific output of any of the bikes >> there, but note the ZX-10R that produces 163 rear-wheel horsepower from >> a 1.0 l engine. That would scale to 1140 horsepower at 7 litres! Of >> course, it would also scale to 326 horsepower at the 2l displacement of >> your S2000, but as mentioned before, engines and their specific outputs >> rarely scale in any sensible way. > > [snip] > > Dear Ryan, > > Model airplane engines displacing 5~10 cc's usually give power figures > in how fast they spin a benchmark propeller. On 10~30% nitro, this > 10.0 cc engine spins an 11x7 (width x blade-pitch) prop at 13,000 rpm > > http://www.redrockethobbies.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=EVOE0610&Show=TechSpecs > > Here are some props and photos, with a 34x12 meaning a 34 width and a > 12 pitch: > > http://www.chiefaircraft.com/rcmsec/Models/Accessories/Props/XOARProps.html > > Smaller engines produce more power per cc, given the same attention to > design and tuning. Forty years ago, the 1966 50cc Honda 4-stroke RC116 > put out 16 horsepower at 21,500 rpm, 320 hp per liter: > > http://www.vf750fd.com/Joep_Kortekaas/1966.html#RC116 > > The exhaust valve weighed 6 grams. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel I remember riding those back in the day and if you rode more than a few miles at that kind of speed, you could feel the buzz/tingle long after getting off the bike. Riding one with all the mechanical noise happening reminded me of being a kid and putting cards in the spokes. Yes, we really did that in the 1950's. Bill Baka               Date: 09 Jun 2007 22:49:14 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:03:10 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:30:30 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> >> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> Engines rarely scale in any sensible way. There are model aircraft >>> engines that would put your S2000 motor in the shade, >>> specific-output-wise. A 7.0l "S2000" would have fourteen cylinders; >>> Lamborghini's Murcielago had a 6.5l V12 that makes 640 horsepower. The >>> 6.0l V12 in the Ferrari Enzo is also rated at 650 hp. >>> >>> I couldn't find any model airplane engine power output figures, but here >>> are some rear-wheel horsepower figures for motorcycles, all normally >>> aspirated: >>> >>> http://www.2fast4u.ca/horsepower_chart.html >>> >>> I'm not sure it has the highest specific output of any of the bikes >>> there, but note the ZX-10R that produces 163 rear-wheel horsepower from >>> a 1.0 l engine. That would scale to 1140 horsepower at 7 litres! Of >>> course, it would also scale to 326 horsepower at the 2l displacement of >>> your S2000, but as mentioned before, engines and their specific outputs >>> rarely scale in any sensible way. >> >> [snip] >> >> Dear Ryan, >> >> Model airplane engines displacing 5~10 cc's usually give power figures >> in how fast they spin a benchmark propeller. On 10~30% nitro, this >> 10.0 cc engine spins an 11x7 (width x blade-pitch) prop at 13,000 rpm >> >> http://www.redrockethobbies.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=EVOE0610&Show=TechSpecs >> >> Here are some props and photos, with a 34x12 meaning a 34 width and a >> 12 pitch: >> >> http://www.chiefaircraft.com/rcmsec/Models/Accessories/Props/XOARProps.html >> >> Smaller engines produce more power per cc, given the same attention to >> design and tuning. Forty years ago, the 1966 50cc Honda 4-stroke RC116 >> put out 16 horsepower at 21,500 rpm, 320 hp per liter: >> >> http://www.vf750fd.com/Joep_Kortekaas/1966.html#RC116 >> >> The exhaust valve weighed 6 grams. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > >I remember riding those back in the day and if you rode more than a few >miles at that kind of speed, you could feel the buzz/tingle long after >getting off the bike. Riding one with all the mechanical noise happening >reminded me of being a kid and putting cards in the spokes. Yes, we >really did that in the 1950's. >Bill Baka Dear Bill, Are you saying that you rode a Honda RC116 for more than a few miles? Cheers, Carl Fogel                 Date: 10 Jun 2007 15:30:59 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:03:10 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> I remember riding those back in the day and if you rode more than a few >> miles at that kind of speed, you could feel the buzz/tingle long after >> getting off the bike. Riding one with all the mechanical noise happening >> reminded me of being a kid and putting cards in the spokes. Yes, we >> really did that in the 1950's. >> Bill Baka > > Dear Bill, > > Are you saying that you rode a Honda RC116 for more than a few miles? Mis-communication. I meant Honda 50's in general. I had a CB160 that vibrated so bad that the parts fell off of it. Some one borrowed it for a 'beer run' and came back with the kickstand and some other parts on top of the 3 cases of beer (the passenger/beer carrier). We also tried to retire it by holding wide open throttle in a parking lot and it just refused to blow up. Those Hondas took a lot of abuse and kept running. Bill Baka > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel                   Date: 10 Jun 2007 17:19:54 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:30:59 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:03:10 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> I remember riding those back in the day and if you rode more than a few >>> miles at that kind of speed, you could feel the buzz/tingle long after >>> getting off the bike. Riding one with all the mechanical noise happening >>> reminded me of being a kid and putting cards in the spokes. Yes, we >>> really did that in the 1950's. >>> Bill Baka >> >> Dear Bill, >> >> Are you saying that you rode a Honda RC116 for more than a few miles? > >Mis-communication. I meant Honda 50's in general. I had a CB160 [snip] Dear Bill, Are you saying that a Honda CB160 had a 50cc engine? Cheers, Carl Fogel                     Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:02:36 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:30:59 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:03:10 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> I remember riding those back in the day and if you rode more than a few >>>> miles at that kind of speed, you could feel the buzz/tingle long after >>>> getting off the bike. Riding one with all the mechanical noise happening >>>> reminded me of being a kid and putting cards in the spokes. Yes, we >>>> really did that in the 1950's. >>>> Bill Baka >>> Dear Bill, >>> >>> Are you saying that you rode a Honda RC116 for more than a few miles? >> Mis-communication. I meant Honda 50's in general. I had a CB160 > > [snip] > > Dear Bill, > > Are you saying that a Honda CB160 had a 50cc engine? > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Quit that. I had, in order, a 50, then 90, then 160, and THEN the Crazy Saki 3 cylinder. They all buzzed my hands and rear to the tingle point. Of course the 750 had to be over 110 MPH or so for it to buzz, but I took a trip on highway 5 when it first opened and had zero cops patrolling it. 130 MPH cruising and not a car in sight. Bliss, very fast bliss, but bliss none the less. Bill Baka                       Date: 10 Jun 2007 22:48:01 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:02:36 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:30:59 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:03:10 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> I remember riding those back in the day and if you rode more than a few >>>>> miles at that kind of speed, you could feel the buzz/tingle long after >>>>> getting off the bike. Riding one with all the mechanical noise happening >>>>> reminded me of being a kid and putting cards in the spokes. Yes, we >>>>> really did that in the 1950's. >>>>> Bill Baka >>>> Dear Bill, >>>> >>>> Are you saying that you rode a Honda RC116 for more than a few miles? >>> Mis-communication. I meant Honda 50's in general. I had a CB160 >> >> [snip] >> >> Dear Bill, >> >> Are you saying that a Honda CB160 had a 50cc engine? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > >Quit that. I had, in order, a 50, then 90, then 160, and THEN the Crazy >Saki 3 cylinder. They all buzzed my hands and rear to the tingle point. >Of course the 750 had to be over 110 MPH or so for it to buzz, but I >took a trip on highway 5 when it first opened and had zero cops >patrolling it. 130 MPH cruising and not a car in sight. >Bliss, very fast bliss, but bliss none the less. >Bill Baka Dear Bill, If I had a Baron Munchausen reputation, I'd try to write posts that didn't require so much re-explanation. Anyone reading your first post would have thought that you were claiming to have ridden RC116 twin cylinder 50 cc racers available only to team riders from the Honda Racing Corporation in Euorpe. Anyone reading your second post would have thought that you were equating 20,000+ rpm exotic 50 cc racers with 160 cc run-of-the-mill economy road bikes. To use your phrase, quit that. Cheers, Carl Fogel                         Date: 11 Jun 2007 05:19:10 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:02:36 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:30:59 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:03:10 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> I remember riding those back in the day and if you rode more than a few >>>>>> miles at that kind of speed, you could feel the buzz/tingle long after >>>>>> getting off the bike. Riding one with all the mechanical noise happening >>>>>> reminded me of being a kid and putting cards in the spokes. Yes, we >>>>>> really did that in the 1950's. >>>>>> Bill Baka >>>>> Dear Bill, >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying that you rode a Honda RC116 for more than a few miles? >>>> Mis-communication. I meant Honda 50's in general. I had a CB160 >>> [snip] >>> >>> Dear Bill, >>> >>> Are you saying that a Honda CB160 had a 50cc engine? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Carl Fogel >> Quit that. I had, in order, a 50, then 90, then 160, and THEN the Crazy >> Saki 3 cylinder. They all buzzed my hands and rear to the tingle point. >> Of course the 750 had to be over 110 MPH or so for it to buzz, but I >> took a trip on highway 5 when it first opened and had zero cops >> patrolling it. 130 MPH cruising and not a car in sight. >> Bliss, very fast bliss, but bliss none the less. >> Bill Baka > > Dear Bill, > > If I had a Baron Munchausen reputation, I'd try to write posts that > didn't require so much re-explanation. > > Anyone reading your first post would have thought that you were > claiming to have ridden RC116 twin cylinder 50 cc racers available > only to team riders from the Honda Racing Corporation in Euorpe. OK, you got me for omitting the fine points. > > Anyone reading your second post would have thought that you were > equating 20,000+ rpm exotic 50 cc racers with 160 cc run-of-the-mill > economy road bikes. If you saw it that way, then maybe I phrased it wrong. I said they all gave a vibration tingle if ridden long enough, not that the 160 would do anything near 20,000 RPM. I do have to admit that different people could interpret things in different ways. Bill Baka > > To use your phrase, quit that. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel       Date: 04 Jun 2007 17:02:22 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft Steve Gravrock writes: >>> And how many bikes have full chain cases? >> Lots more than have shaft drive! It's true that they're rare in >> the U.S.A., but most bikes in the Netherlands have them. > That may be the crux of the argument, for anyone in the US who wants > an enclosed drivetrain. A quick Google found me somebody who would > sell a shaft drive bike mail-order, but I had no such luck when it > came to bikes with full chaincases. I couldn't find a single > example available in the US. I've been told that Breezer has a > model with a full chaincase, but it's not listed on their website. > In any case Breezer neither sells mail-order nor has a dealer within > a full day's round trip of me. > Now suppose I've seen an advertisement for a shaft-drive bike, and > I'm sold on the idea of an enclosed drivetrain. Even if I know that > a full chaincase is a better solution, I run up against the minor > obstacle that no one will sell me such a bike. > I agree with you that shaft drive is a loser compared to enclosed > chain drive, but a bike that somebody can't get is no use at all. > If somebody I knew was convinced that they wanted an enclosed > drivetrain, I'd be hard-pressed to talk them out of buying a shaft > drive bike simply because I couldn't offer an alternative. The crux of the problem is that in Holland there aren't many mountains and in the flat most any drive system has it easy. From the bevel gear size and shaft diameter, I believe the units shown here: http://www.sussex.com.tw/se2.htm http://www.showandgo.com.au/ebikes/shaft.htm?shaft_bf.htm~mainFrame have both springiness from drive shaft twist and the gears would not survive steep climbs. These also generate large bending forces at either end of the shaft that would result in failure of the housings if used to climb steep grades. Jobst Brandt         Date: 04 Jun 2007 12:01:52 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On 04 Jun 2007 17:02:22 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Steve Gravrock writes: > >>>> And how many bikes have full chain cases? > >>> Lots more than have shaft drive! It's true that they're rare in >>> the U.S.A., but most bikes in the Netherlands have them. > >> That may be the crux of the argument, for anyone in the US who wants >> an enclosed drivetrain. A quick Google found me somebody who would >> sell a shaft drive bike mail-order, but I had no such luck when it >> came to bikes with full chaincases. I couldn't find a single >> example available in the US. I've been told that Breezer has a >> model with a full chaincase, but it's not listed on their website. >> In any case Breezer neither sells mail-order nor has a dealer within >> a full day's round trip of me. > >> Now suppose I've seen an advertisement for a shaft-drive bike, and >> I'm sold on the idea of an enclosed drivetrain. Even if I know that >> a full chaincase is a better solution, I run up against the minor >> obstacle that no one will sell me such a bike. > >> I agree with you that shaft drive is a loser compared to enclosed >> chain drive, but a bike that somebody can't get is no use at all. >> If somebody I knew was convinced that they wanted an enclosed >> drivetrain, I'd be hard-pressed to talk them out of buying a shaft >> drive bike simply because I couldn't offer an alternative. > >The crux of the problem is that in Holland there aren't many mountains >and in the flat most any drive system has it easy. From the bevel >gear size and shaft diameter, I believe the units shown here: > >http://www.sussex.com.tw/se2.htm >http://www.showandgo.com.au/ebikes/shaft.htm?shaft_bf.htm~mainFrame > >have both springiness from drive shaft twist and the gears would not >survive steep climbs. These also generate large bending forces at >either end of the shaft that would result in failure of the housings >if used to climb steep grades. > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, What do you find wrong with Dave Van Tol's calculations showing negligible springiness? Have you any examples of such failures? Here's a charming ad addressing your apparently theoretical concerns: http://www.jimlangley.net/brake/columbia02.html Cheers, Carl Fogel         Date: 04 Jun 2007 13:32:38 From: dvt Subject: Re: Drive shaft jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > From the bevel > gear size and shaft diameter, I believe the units shown here: > > http://www.sussex.com.tw/se2.htm > http://www.showandgo.com.au/ebikes/shaft.htm?shaft_bf.htm~mainFrame > > have both springiness from drive shaft twist and the gears would not > survive steep climbs. Can you share your calculations? -- Dave dvt at psu dot edu           Date: 04 Jun 2007 18:21:09 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft Dave Vt? writes: >> From the bevel gear size and shaft diameter, I believe the units >> shown here: http://www.sussex.com.tw/se2.htm http://www.showandgo.com.au/ebikes/shaft.htm?shaft_bf.htm~mainFrame >> have both springiness from drive shaft twist and the gears would >> not survive steep climbs. > Can you share your calculations? 1:1 ratio from pedals to shaft = 120 ft-lb torque. My solid 10" socket extension with a similar sized shaft has substantial twist for tight bolts and it is shorter than the shafts shown. From this experience, I think my estimate of elasticity is in the right magnitude. I'm using a rider standing on the pedal, pulling up with the other as one can do on hills. How about your perspective on this? Jobst Brandt             Date: 04 Jun 2007 16:16:03 From: dvt Subject: Re: Drive shaft jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Dave Vt? writes: > >>> From the bevel gear size and shaft diameter, I believe the units >>> shown here: > > http://www.sussex.com.tw/se2.htm > http://www.showandgo.com.au/ebikes/shaft.htm?shaft_bf.htm~mainFrame > >>> have both springiness from drive shaft twist and the gears would >>> not survive steep climbs. > >> Can you share your calculations? > > 1:1 ratio from pedals to shaft = 120 ft-lb torque. My solid 10" > socket extension with a similar sized shaft has substantial twist for > tight bolts and it is shorter than the shafts shown. From this > experience, I think my estimate of elasticity is in the right > magnitude. I'm using a rider standing on the pedal, pulling up with > the other as one can do on hills. > > How about your perspective on this? > > Jobst Brandt http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/160fdec69cb96c03/22caf64dfefd5c10?lnk=gst&q=carl+major+taylor&rnum=1#22caf64dfefd5c10 As I said upthread, see message 154 of that discussion for the conclusion. Preceding messages give details on the calculations. In that thread, we found that a heavy rider stomping on the pedal at a standstill should cause the driveshaft to twist a wee bit. The crank would rotate less than 0.5° about the bottom bracket due to the twist in the driveshaft. The assumptions were a little different... 0.5" diameter shaft (is your socket extension this large?), 14" long, 2.5:1 ratio from crank to shaft (not the 1:1 that you assume). -- Dave dvt at psu dot edu Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and novelist (1811-1896)               Date: 12 Jun 2007 02:43:36 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 9, 3:30 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote: > In article <1181396481.719357.34...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > On Jun 9, 2:16 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > > ... > > > They [Corvettes] also do very well in quite a number of racing categories, > > > though > > > such arguments are always muddied by the fact that with enough > > > modification and accommodating rules, lots of cars turn into successful > > > racers. > > > If the old rules that matched cars in classes for racing by engine > > displacement were reinstalled, the Corvette (or any car with a pushrod > > engine) would not be competitive. So GM gets 505 hp from a 7.0L > > engine. Scale up the engine of the Honda S2000 to 7.0L, and the result > > would be 840 hp. > > Displacement rules are interesting for formula racing categories, but on > the other hand, if displacement rules were reinstated, every race car > would be a rotary (or they'd use the rule that the area occupied by the > rotary's piston counts against its displacement...). And whither > turbines? So brute size should be rewarded over modern engineering? > Engines rarely scale in any sensible way. There are model aircraft > engines that would put your S2000 motor in the shade, > specific-output-wise. What about emissions and durability? > A 7.0l "S2000" would have fourteen cylinders; > Lamborghini's Murcielago had a 6.5l V12 that makes 640 horsepower. The > 6.0l V12 in the Ferrari Enzo is also rated at 650 hp. > > I couldn't find any model airplane engine power output figures, but here > are some rear-wheel horsepower figures for motorcycles, all normally > aspirated: > > http://www.2fast4u.ca/horsepower_chart.html > > I'm not sure it has the highest specific output of any of the bikes > there, but note the ZX-10R that produces 163 rear-wheel horsepower from > a 1.0 l engine. That would scale to 1140 horsepower at 7 litres! Of > course, it would also scale to 326 horsepower at the 2l displacement of > your S2000, but as mentioned before, engines and their specific outputs > rarely scale in any sensible way. > > The point really is that nobody buys a car by displacement. To a first > order, cars are bought on cost, but that's confounded by a dozen other > variables. For sports cars, dynamic performance, acceleration, > aesthetics, and refinement (everything from leather seats to "doesn't > try to kill the driver with lift-throttle oversteer") count a lot. In areas where vehicles are taxed based on displacement, so people do take that into consideration. Progressive taxation of (non-work) vehicles on engine displacement, weight and height would be a great idea. > ... > And if you're wondering about the utility of these sports cars we're > discussing, well, I invite you to count the number of sports cars passed > by the bike in this video: > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=dj1Ifq9Tfas > > Z4, Mustang, two motorcycles, 3-series convertible...I don't see a lot > of places where 505 hp would have helped. Why would anyone commute on a route with such traffic? When I lived in Chicagoland, by careful route planning, I was able to commute at well over 50 kph average speed. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful                 Date: 12 Jun 2007 16:18:03 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft Tom Sherman writes: >>>> ... They [Corvettes] also do very well in quite a number of >>>> racing categories, though such arguments are always muddied by >>>> the fact that with enough modification and accommodating rules, >>>> lots of cars turn into successful racers. >>> If the old rules that matched cars in classes for racing by engine >>> displacement were reinstalled, the Corvette (or any car with a >>> pushrod engine) would not be competitive. So GM gets 505 hp from a >>> 7.0L engine. Scale up the engine of the Honda S2000 to 7.0L, and >>> the result would be 840 hp. >> Displacement rules are interesting for formula racing categories, >> but on the other hand, if displacement rules were reinstated, every >> race car would be a rotary (or they'd use the rule that the area >> occupied by the rotary's piston counts against its >> displacement...). And whither turbines? > So brute size should be rewarded over modern engineering? >> Engines rarely scale in any sensible way. There are model aircraft >> engines that would put your S2000 motor in the shade, >> specific-output-wise. > What about emissions and durability? A Modern Parable A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (General Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India. Sadly, The End. Sad, but oh so true! Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US The last quarter's results: Toyota makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads. If this wasn't so true it might be funny. --------------- Jobst Brandt                   Date: 12 Jun 2007 20:23:06 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On 12 Jun 2007 16:18:03 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Tom Sherman writes: > >>>>> ... They [Corvettes] also do very well in quite a number of >>>>> racing categories, though such arguments are always muddied by >>>>> the fact that with enough modification and accommodating rules, >>>>> lots of cars turn into successful racers. > >>>> If the old rules that matched cars in classes for racing by engine >>>> displacement were reinstalled, the Corvette (or any car with a >>>> pushrod engine) would not be competitive. So GM gets 505 hp from a >>>> 7.0L engine. Scale up the engine of the Honda S2000 to 7.0L, and >>>> the result would be 840 hp. > >>> Displacement rules are interesting for formula racing categories, >>> but on the other hand, if displacement rules were reinstated, every >>> race car would be a rotary (or they'd use the rule that the area >>> occupied by the rotary's piston counts against its >>> displacement...). And whither turbines? > >> So brute size should be rewarded over modern engineering? > >>> Engines rarely scale in any sensible way. There are model aircraft >>> engines that would put your S2000 motor in the shade, >>> specific-output-wise. > >> What about emissions and durability? > >A Modern Parable > >A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (General Motors) >decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams >practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the >race. > >On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The Americans, very >discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the >crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was >formed > >to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was >the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the >American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. > >Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a >consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second >opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering >the boat, while not enough people were rowing. > >Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent >another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure >was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering >superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They >also > >implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person >rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the >'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free >pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, >canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and >bonuses. > >The next year the Japanese won by two miles. > >Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor >performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and >canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved >was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next >year's racing team was out-sourced to India. Sadly, The End. > >Sad, but oh so true! Here's something else to think about: Ford has >spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, >claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has >spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside >the US > >The last quarter's results: > >Toyota makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in >losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads. > >If this wasn't so true it might be funny. > >--------------- > >Jobst Brandt Top heavy management for sure. Toyota reaps the benefits of not being unionized as well as so far avoiding the exorbitant health costs that have grown at GM. You'd think GM would be able to design and build something as bullet proof as the Corolla; 25 million sold world wide. An excellent treatise on this subject is containd within David Halberstam's book, The Fifties. William Deming offered his methods of quality control to the US auto industry and they scoffed. He taught the Japanese and now we have Honda, Toyota and Nissan producing great cars for the past several decades, not quite killing off Detroit, yet.                     Date: 12 Jun 2007 20:05:12 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > On 12 Jun 2007 16:18:03 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > >> Tom Sherman writes: >> >>>>>> ... They [Corvettes] also do very well in quite a number of >>>>>> racing categories, though such arguments are always muddied by >>>>>> the fact that with enough modification and accommodating rules, >>>>>> lots of cars turn into successful racers. >>>>> If the old rules that matched cars in classes for racing by engine >>>>> displacement were reinstalled, the Corvette (or any car with a >>>>> pushrod engine) would not be competitive. So GM gets 505 hp from a >>>>> 7.0L engine. Scale up the engine of the Honda S2000 to 7.0L, and >>>>> the result would be 840 hp. >>>> Displacement rules are interesting for formula racing categories, >>>> but on the other hand, if displacement rules were reinstated, every >>>> race car would be a rotary (or they'd use the rule that the area >>>> occupied by the rotary's piston counts against its >>>> displacement...). And whither turbines? >>> So brute size should be rewarded over modern engineering? >>>> Engines rarely scale in any sensible way. There are model aircraft >>>> engines that would put your S2000 motor in the shade, >>>> specific-output-wise. >>> What about emissions and durability? >> A Modern Parable >> >> A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (General Motors) >> decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams >> practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the >> race. >> >> On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The Americans, very >> discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the >> crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was >> formed >> >> to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was >> the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the >> American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. >> >> Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a >> consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second >> opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering >> the boat, while not enough people were rowing. >> >> Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent >> another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure >> was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering >> superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They >> also >> >> implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person >> rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the >> 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free >> pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, >> canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and >> bonuses. >> >> The next year the Japanese won by two miles. >> >> Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor >> performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and >> canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved >> was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next >> year's racing team was out-sourced to India. Sadly, The End. >> >> Sad, but oh so true! Here's something else to think about: Ford has >> spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, >> claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has >> spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside >> the US >> >> The last quarter's results: >> >> Toyota makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in >> losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads. >> >> If this wasn't so true it might be funny. >> >> --------------- >> >> Jobst Brandt > > Top heavy management for sure. Toyota reaps the benefits of not being > unionized as well as so far avoiding the exorbitant health costs that > have grown at GM. You'd think GM would be able to design and build > something as bullet proof as the Corolla; 25 million sold world wide. imo, if they produced a decent product, that sold and made money, they could afford their health costs. not that management should have let them get out of control in the first place though. > > An excellent treatise on this subject is containd within David > Halberstam's book, The Fifties. William Deming offered his methods of > quality control to the US auto industry and they scoffed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming > He taught > the Japanese and now we have Honda, Toyota and Nissan producing great > cars for the past several decades, not quite killing off Detroit, yet. another stupid thing about detroit: they have european car divisions that are actually effective and profitable. they produce cars that sell, that people like and want. and that compete with the japanese. and their profits float u.s. operations which are none of the above. ridiculous.                       Date: 14 Jun 2007 07:34:09 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Drive shaft jim beam wrote: > R Brickston wrote: >> Top heavy management for sure. Toyota reaps the benefits of not being >> unionized as well as so far avoiding the exorbitant health costs that >> have grown at GM. You'd think GM would be able to design and build >> something as bullet proof as the Corolla; 25 million sold world wide. > > imo, if they produced a decent product, that sold and made money, they > could afford their health costs. not that management should have let > them get out of control in the first place though. As Jobst's little story depicts, the problem of US car makers is simply too many non-engineers involved in what is fundamentally an engineering enterprise. The same thing has happened at most of the formerly great US engineering companies. You can see the same phenomenon in the bicycle industry and this NG.                       Date: 13 Jun 2007 11:24:02 From: R Brickston Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:05:12 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: >R Brickston wrote: >> On 12 Jun 2007 16:18:03 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >> >>> Tom Sherman writes: >>> >>>>>>> ... They [Corvettes] also do very well in quite a number of >>>>>>> racing categories, though such arguments are always muddied by >>>>>>> the fact that with enough modification and accommodating rules, >>>>>>> lots of cars turn into successful racers. >>>>>> If the old rules that matched cars in classes for racing by engine >>>>>> displacement were reinstalled, the Corvette (or any car with a >>>>>> pushrod engine) would not be competitive. So GM gets 505 hp from a >>>>>> 7.0L engine. Scale up the engine of the Honda S2000 to 7.0L, and >>>>>> the result would be 840 hp. >>>>> Displacement rules are interesting for formula racing categories, >>>>> but on the other hand, if displacement rules were reinstated, every >>>>> race car would be a rotary (or they'd use the rule that the area >>>>> occupied by the rotary's piston counts against its >>>>> displacement...). And whither turbines? >>>> So brute size should be rewarded over modern engineering? >>>>> Engines rarely scale in any sensible way. There are model aircraft >>>>> engines that would put your S2000 motor in the shade, >>>>> specific-output-wise. >>>> What about emissions and durability? >>> A Modern Parable >>> >>> A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (General Motors) >>> decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams >>> practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the >>> race. >>> >>> On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The Americans, very >>> discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the >>> crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was >>> formed >>> >>> to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was >>> the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the >>> American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. >>> >>> Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a >>> consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second >>> opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering >>> the boat, while not enough people were rowing. >>> >>> Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent >>> another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure >>> was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering >>> superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They >>> also >>> >>> implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person >>> rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the >>> 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free >>> pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, >>> canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and >>> bonuses. >>> >>> The next year the Japanese won by two miles. >>> >>> Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor >>> performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and >>> canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved >>> was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next >>> year's racing team was out-sourced to India. Sadly, The End. >>> >>> Sad, but oh so true! Here's something else to think about: Ford has >>> spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, >>> claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has >>> spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside >>> the US >>> >>> The last quarter's results: >>> >>> Toyota makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in >>> losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads. >>> >>> If this wasn't so true it might be funny. >>> >>> --------------- >>> >>> Jobst Brandt >> >> Top heavy management for sure. Toyota reaps the benefits of not being >> unionized as well as so far avoiding the exorbitant health costs that >> have grown at GM. You'd think GM would be able to design and build >> something as bullet proof as the Corolla; 25 million sold world wide. > >imo, if they produced a decent product, that sold and made money, they >could afford their health costs. not that management should have let >them get out of control in the first place though. > >> >> An excellent treatise on this subject is containd within David >> Halberstam's book, The Fifties. William Deming offered his methods of >> quality control to the US auto industry and they scoffed. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming > >> He taught >> the Japanese and now we have Honda, Toyota and Nissan producing great >> cars for the past several decades, not quite killing off Detroit, yet. > >another stupid thing about detroit: they have european car divisions >that are actually effective and profitable. they produce cars that >sell, that people like and want. and that compete with the japanese. >and their profits float u.s. operations which are none of the above. >ridiculous. With the ridiculous benefits European workers enjoy, paid six week vacations, etc. I would venture that those product arms have to operate at a much higher efficiency to succeed. It's right there in front of Detroit to see and learn. OTH, in today's news, Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo have cost Ford $15 billion in losses since 1987.                         Date: 13 Jun 2007 15:40:55 From: Sandy Subject: Re: Drive shaft Dans le message de news:vfkv63ledjrs6sqbfg22t1hop6vi499tm0@4ax.com, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : > > With the ridiculous benefits European workers enjoy, paid six week > vacations, etc. Your envy-slip is showing. ;-)                         Date: 13 Jun 2007 13:06:02 From: Bill Subject: Re: Drive shaft R Brickston wrote: > > With the ridiculous benefits European workers enjoy, paid six week > vacations, etc. I would venture that those product arms have to > operate at a much higher efficiency to succeed. It's right there in > front of Detroit to see and learn. OTH, in today's news, Jaguar, Land > Rover and Volvo have cost Ford $15 billion in losses since 1987. This one I will reply to. I am one of those who wondered why Ford bought all those companies on their last legs. It didn't make sense then or now. Bill Baka                   Date: 12 Jun 2007 09:29:28 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Drive shaft jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Tom Sherman writes: > >>>>> ... They [Corvettes] also do very well in quite a number of >>>>> racing categories, though such arguments are always muddied by >>>>> the fact that with enough modification and accommodating rules, >>>>> lots of cars turn into successful racers. > >>>> If the old rules that matched cars in classes for racing by engine >>>> displacement were reinstalled, the Corvette (or any car with a >>>> pushrod engine) would not be competitive. So GM gets 505 hp from a >>>> 7.0L engine. Scale up the engine of the Honda S2000 to 7.0L, and >>>> the result would be 840 hp. > >>> Displacement rules are interesting for formula racing categories, >>> but on the other hand, if displacement rules were reinstated, every >>> race car would be a rotary (or they'd use the rule that the area >>> occupied by the rotary's piston counts against its >>> displacement...). And whither turbines? > >> So brute size should be rewarded over modern engineering? > >>> Engines rarely scale in any sensible way. There are model aircraft >>> engines that would put your S2000 motor in the shade, >>> specific-output-wise. > >> What about emissions and durability? > > A Modern Parable > > A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (General Motors) > decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams > practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the > race. > > On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The Americans, very > discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the > crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was > formed > > to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was > the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the > American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. > > Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a > consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second > opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering > the boat, while not enough people were rowing. > > Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent > another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure > was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering > superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They > also > > implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person > rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the > 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free > pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, > canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and > bonuses. > > The next year the Japanese won by two miles. > > Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor > performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and > canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved > was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next > year's racing team was out-sourced to India. Sadly, The End. > > Sad, but oh so true! Here's something else to think about: Ford has > spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, > claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has > spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside > the US > > The last quarter's results: > > Toyota makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in > losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads. > > If this wasn't so true it might be funny. > i'm with you 100% on this. the most ironic thing is, /we/ taught the japanese the management methods they use, but we don't use them ourselves.   Date: 02 Jun 2007 12:36:12 From: Nexus7 Subject: Re: Drive shaft On May 30, 3:38 pm, Sheldon Brown <CaptB...@sheldonbrown.com > wrote: > Purveyors of shaft drive bikes often use misleading arguments to > promote their products. If anything, it is the arguments made against shaft-drive on your web page that are misleading. "All the benefits of shaft-drive can be obtained with a chain case?" I've used a chain case. They are finicky about being fitted right. They constantly rub against chain and the cranks. They accumulate dust, grime, and muddy rain water and smear your pants anyway. A shaft drive tube is much less obstrusive. And how many bikes have full chain cases? None that have derailleurs. How many shaft-drive bikes have enclosed shafts? All of them. Obsolete? For what use? Shaft-drives make reliable utility and commuter bikes, and any other use where the reduced efficiency (compared to an aligned and lubricated chain) isn't noticeable.     Date: 07 Jun 2007 21:35:24 From: Tom Ace Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 7, 11:19 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > You'll notice that no major car manufacturers uses torsion bar > suspension, nor push rod and hydraulic valve lifters, Pushrods and hydraulic lifters aren't completely gone yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine Tom Ace       Date: 08 Jun 2007 05:13:22 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft Tom Ace writes: >> You'll notice that no major car manufacturers uses torsion bar >> suspension, nor push rod and hydraulic valve lifters, > Pushrods and hydraulic lifters aren't completely gone yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine No wonder GM is still off the back trying to make reliable machinery. I think Wiki can answer some of that in another department: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle_engine_valves "Desmodromic drive" Jobst Brandt         Date: 09 Jun 2007 04:23:19 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <4668e572$0$14124$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Tom Ace writes: > > >> You'll notice that no major car manufacturers uses torsion bar > >> suspension, nor push rod and hydraulic valve lifters, > > > Pushrods and hydraulic lifters aren't completely gone yet. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine > > No wonder GM is still off the back trying to make reliable machinery. > I think Wiki can answer some of that in another department: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle_engine_valves > > "Desmodromic drive" The GM LS engines are very reliable, by all accounts. They also fit into cars that have class-competitive performance in terms of power, weight, price, and fuel economy. The current LS7 motor is spec'd at 505 horsepower from a 7.0l block. Not bad for pushrods and hydraulic lifters. The displacement sounds absurdly large, but owing to the packaging advantages of having a single cam and only rockers in the heads instead of camshafts, the size and weight are competitive with other 500hp cars, such as they are. GM has figured out the secret of making these engines breathe, and breathe they do. Rumors abound that the next step will be a supercharged version, which may see the design exceed 600 horsepower. Admittedly, these engines don't breathe that well. Redline is about 7000 rpm. BTW, your section on desmo valves in the article above is quite interesting. The stuff on resonance and how it was stopped is neat. As for cars of the same price as the Corvette with 500hp, there are none. The only road cars that are likely to be quicker and cheaper are those boutique roadsters that England seems to spawn by the dozen, usually featuring medium-sized engines in very small cars, and designs not allowed off the island. The Ariel Atom is a good example. The exceedingly clever Tesla Roadster also deserves a passing note here, though that pudding is not quite cooked yet. Indeed, if all GM cars were as successful as the Corvette, GM would be very happy! The Corvette has competed very well in the same space that Porsche lives in, pushrods or no. GM's trouble has come in its inability to compete with Toyota, and legacy health-and-pension liabilities. Those are liabilities they freely took on, but they are paying for it today. ObBike: how is it that you can be so fond of steel as a frame material but not acknowledge the performance success Corvette has found with hydraulic pushrods? In both cases a theoretically retro choice works out surprisingly well in practice. Oh! Oh! And the nearly-saved-Chrysler 300 series (300, Magnum, Charger...all the LX/LE cars) are using pushrod V8s for their upgrade engines. Nobody thinks the engine is the problem with that car, either. Full disclosure: my father has owned a Corvette since before I was born. He still has it. We can, however, find common ground in his ownership of an early 928, though. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos           Date: 09 Jun 2007 01:11:37 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Drive shaft Ryan Cousineau wrote: -snip- > ObBike: how is it that you can be so fond of steel as a frame material > but not acknowledge the performance success Corvette has found with > hydraulic pushrods? In both cases a theoretically retro choice works out > surprisingly well in practice. -snip- Why's steel 'retro'? Our very modern steels allow a frame roughly half the weight of 25 years ago yet more rigid at roughly the same cost. I assumed a 1982 $400 Ciocc or a Holdsworth (not an Eisentraut) versus a Gunnar with CrMo fork (for comparable market position). Retro? Au courant! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971             Date: 09 Jun 2007 07:31:02 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <136kh5c4c98qf00@corp.supernews.com >, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > -snip- > > ObBike: how is it that you can be so fond of steel as a frame material > > but not acknowledge the performance success Corvette has found with > > hydraulic pushrods? In both cases a theoretically retro choice works out > > surprisingly well in practice. > -snip- > > Why's steel 'retro'? Our very modern steels allow a frame roughly half > the weight of 25 years ago yet more rigid at roughly the same cost. I > assumed a 1982 $400 Ciocc or a Holdsworth (not an Eisentraut) versus a > Gunnar with CrMo fork (for comparable market position). > > Retro? Au courant! "THEORETICALLY retro." As in, nominally surpassed by current technology, just like hydraulic-pushrod engines. However, just like hydraulic-pushrod engines, there are good, real-world examples of these technologies persisting in applications where their performance limitations are not at all manifest. Just as the banner for steel frames is being capably flown by everyone from Gunnar to Surly, Chevrolet makes a compelling case for the hydraulic-pushrod engine in the form of its class-competitive LS3 and LS7 V8s. Indeed, steel probably has bigger competitive problems than the LS V8s: the cheaper, lighter (and probably stronger) aluminum frames out there. Steel comes with its own advantages (respaceable, repairable, magnets stick to it...), but LS-powered Corvettes are very price and performance-competitive with other sports cars. There's no obvious competitor that has it outgunned in a wide variety of categories. Porsches offer more refinement at half again the cost, and Mustangs offer much of the performance (plus solid axles, an even more primitive technology...) at rather less than the price of a 'vette, but that's pretty much the boundaries of its rather big bit of performance territory. I should say: lots of people buy Corvettes not because they offer killer horsepower/dollar, but because they're Corvettes, with all that entails. Lots of people buy Bianchis and Colnagos (and even Treks and Giants) for the same reason. But in its market niche, the Corvette is a "rational" choice. This is, of course, getting dangerously close to the territory where I start arguing about how having a snorkel-equipped 4x4 is a rational choice, which it probably is for about 10% of the people who have one... -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos           Date: 09 Jun 2007 05:22:07 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft Ryan Cousineau writes: >>>> You'll notice that no major car manufacturers uses torsion bar >>>> suspension, nor push rod and hydraulic valve lifters, >>> Pushrods and hydraulic lifters aren't completely gone yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine >> No wonder GM is still off the back trying to make reliable >> machinery. I think Wiki can answer some of that in another >> department: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle_engine_valves >> "Desmodromic drive" > The GM LS engines are very reliable, by all accounts. They also fit > into cars that have class-competitive performance in terms of power, > weight, price, and fuel economy. The current LS7 motor is spec'd at > 505 horsepower from a 7.0l block. Not bad for pushrods and > hydraulic lifters. > The displacement sounds absurdly large, but owing to the packaging > advantages of having a single cam and only rockers in the heads > instead of camshafts, the size and weight are competitive with other > 500hp cars, such as they are. GM has figured out the secret of > making these engines breathe, and breathe they do. Rumors abound > that the next step will be a supercharged version, which may see the > design exceed 600 horsepower. > Admittedly, these engines don't breathe that well. Redline is about > 7000 rpm. > BTW, your section on desmo valves in the article above is quite > interesting. The stuff on resonance and how it was stopped is neat. > As for cars of the same price as the Corvette with 500hp, there are > none. The only road cars that are likely to be quicker and cheaper > are those boutique roadsters that England seems to spawn by the > dozen, usually featuring medium-sized engines in very small cars, > and designs not allowed off the island. The Ariel Atom is a good > example. The exceedingly clever Tesla Roadster also deserves a > passing note here, though that pudding is not quite cooked yet. > Indeed, if all GM cars were as successful as the Corvette, GM would > be very happy! The Corvette has competed very well in the same space > that Porsche lives in, pushrods or no. > GM's trouble has come in its inability to compete with Toyota, and > legacy health-and-pension liabilities. Those are liabilities they > freely took on, but they are paying for it today. > ObBike: how is it that you can be so fond of steel as a frame > material but not acknowledge the performance success Corvette has > found with hydraulic pushrods? In both cases a theoretically retro > choice works out surprisingly well in practice. > Oh! Oh! And the nearly-saved-Chrysler 300 series (300, Magnum, > Charger...all the LX/LE cars) are using pushrod V8s for their > upgrade engines. Nobody thinks the engine is the problem with that > car, either. > Full disclosure: my father has owned a Corvette since before I was > born. He still has it. We can, however, find common ground in his > ownership of an early 928, though. All the reasons for sales success of corvettes applies even more so for Harley Davidson, who has truly archaic engines for more reasons than valve drive, yet they command a large part of the market i the USA and Europe. Some vehicles are a cult thing, others are function. We are living in a time when people buy cars for reasons to which they don't admit. Consider the popularity of four door jacked up pickup trucks, or the Daimler-Chrysler Gangstah cars ala Al Capone with squinty windows. Exhaust pipes are in, BIG, and most cars have more than enough. Here is a classic of which there are far too many: http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg You mean you don't drive truck! What kind of weirdo are you, anyway? Jobst Brandt             Date: 09 Jun 2007 07:16:52 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <466a38ff$0$14117$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Ryan Cousineau writes: > > >>>> You'll notice that no major car manufacturers uses torsion bar > >>>> suspension, nor push rod and hydraulic valve lifters, > > >>> Pushrods and hydraulic lifters aren't completely gone yet. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine > > >> No wonder GM is still off the back trying to make reliable > >> machinery. I think Wiki can answer some of that in another > >> department: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle_engine_valves > > >> "Desmodromic drive" > > > The GM LS engines are very reliable, by all accounts. They also fit > > into cars that have class-competitive performance in terms of power, > > weight, price, and fuel economy. The current LS7 motor is spec'd at > > 505 horsepower from a 7.0l block. Not bad for pushrods and > > hydraulic lifters. > > > The displacement sounds absurdly large, but owing to the packaging > > advantages of having a single cam and only rockers in the heads > > instead of camshafts, the size and weight are competitive with other > > 500hp cars, such as they are. GM has figured out the secret of > > making these engines breathe, and breathe they do. Rumors abound > > that the next step will be a supercharged version, which may see the > > design exceed 600 horsepower. > > > Admittedly, these engines don't breathe that well. Redline is about > > 7000 rpm. > > > BTW, your section on desmo valves in the article above is quite > > interesting. The stuff on resonance and how it was stopped is neat. > > > As for cars of the same price as the Corvette with 500hp, there are > > none. The only road cars that are likely to be quicker and cheaper > > are those boutique roadsters that England seems to spawn by the > > dozen, usually featuring medium-sized engines in very small cars, > > and designs not allowed off the island. The Ariel Atom is a good > > example. The exceedingly clever Tesla Roadster also deserves a > > passing note here, though that pudding is not quite cooked yet. > > > Indeed, if all GM cars were as successful as the Corvette, GM would > > be very happy! The Corvette has competed very well in the same space > > that Porsche lives in, pushrods or no. > > > GM's trouble has come in its inability to compete with Toyota, and > > legacy health-and-pension liabilities. Those are liabilities they > > freely took on, but they are paying for it today. > > > ObBike: how is it that you can be so fond of steel as a frame > > material but not acknowledge the performance success Corvette has > > found with hydraulic pushrods? In both cases a theoretically retro > > choice works out surprisingly well in practice. > > > Oh! Oh! And the nearly-saved-Chrysler 300 series (300, Magnum, > > Charger...all the LX/LE cars) are using pushrod V8s for their > > upgrade engines. Nobody thinks the engine is the problem with that > > car, either. > > > Full disclosure: my father has owned a Corvette since before I was > > born. He still has it. We can, however, find common ground in his > > ownership of an early 928, though. > > All the reasons for sales success of corvettes applies even more so > for Harley Davidson, who has truly archaic engines for more reasons > than valve drive, yet they command a large part of the market i the > USA and Europe. Some vehicles are a cult thing, others are function. No! The attraction of the Harley is fundamentally based on aesthetics, with performance serving (nay, at the service of) that end. The V-Rod and the Buells are their performance machines, and have an entirely different set of engines, though each with their own peculiar compromises. The problem with applying this argument to a Corvette is that they are really, really good sports cars. We could debate back and forth about the compromises that make them (compared to other really fast cars) what they are, but the point is that as fast cars go, it's performance-competitive. It turns good lap times, it goes really fast in a straight line, it doesn't have any horrifying dynamic behaviour (though the last time I read a review, I think C&D said recent Corvettes are more of a handful at the limit than previous cars; this may have something to do with that 500 horsepower...), and it costs and weighs such that it is an attractive choice among high-performance sports cars. They also do very well in quite a number of racing categories, though such arguments are always muddied by the fact that with enough modification and accommodating rules, lots of cars turn into successful racers. The Corvette is pretty much faster than anything cheaper, and cheaper than anything faster. That's a pretty functional market position, at least in the slightly absurd world of sports cars. > We are living in a time when people buy cars for reasons to which they > don't admit. Consider the popularity of four door jacked up pickup > trucks, or the Daimler-Chrysler Gangstah cars ala Al Capone with > squinty windows. Exhaust pipes are in, BIG, and most cars have more > than enough. Well, I'd love to see the functional argument for any Porsche. It's a dangerous road arguing against the aesthetics of cars you don't like. The Gangstah cars also succeeded because they started with tasty bits from the Mercedes C-class parts bin, brought rear drive to the masses (which may be an aesthetic thing...), and offered a pretty reasonably-priced family sedan that didn't suck. > Here is a classic of which there are far too many: > > http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg > > You mean you don't drive truck! What kind of weirdo are you, anyway? At least we can see that this one gets muddy. I wouldn't own such a vehicle, and I'm seriously bemused by the compromises it would take to drive such a machine, but it is not vastly more ridiculous than any number of other vehicles out there (restored MG TFs, the Karmann Ghia, sports cars in general, the Porsche Boxster in particular, the New Beetle...). If functionality were the watchword, we'd mostly be in Toyota Yarises and Mazda 5s, or on three-speed bicycles, or pick your favourite function-first vehicle. Maybe the Nissan S-Cargo? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_S-Cargo A compromise we could all live with! Holding out for a Nissan Figaro myself, -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos     Date: 06 Jun 2007 19:30:10 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 6, 12:05 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:08:38 +0000, Nexus7 wrote: > > On Jun 4, 10:57 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote: > >> reasons why car manufacturers do not use torsion bar suspension, like > >> the ones I designed at Porsche, is that they require large torsional > >> anchors at both ends, ones that convert torsion to linear force. This > >> costs weight in levers and heavy bearings and money. > > > The comparison of torsion bars used in suspension to drive shafts is > > meaningless. In any event, torsion bars are still used with certain > > suspension/wheel geometries, three wheelers, for example. For most > > cars, struts offer better control and economics, however this is > > entirely unrelated to drive shafts. Cars, trucks, etc. still use drive > > shafts in torsion. A long time algo a lot of cars used chains, and > > actually some 3 wheelers still do, but shafts and gears have > > displaced chains. > > >> That they exist and that they don't command any significant market > >> share is an indication of design flaws, be they mechanical, economic > >> or a pain to change a flat tire. > > > By this reasoning, Lamborghinis must make really sucky cars. > > As a former employee of two different Lambhorgini repair shops, I > concur.... What about the tractors: <http://www.samedeutz-fahr.com/lamborghini/ >? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful       Date: 07 Jun 2007 18:19:31 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft Tom Sherman writes: >>>> reasons why car manufacturers do not use torsion bar suspension, >>>> like the ones I designed at Porsche, is that they require large >>>> torsional anchors at both ends, ones that convert torsion to >>>> linear force. This costs weight in levers and heavy bearings and >>>> money. >>> The comparison of torsion bars used in suspension to drive shafts >>> is meaningless. In any event, torsion bars are still used with >>> certain suspension/wheel geometries, three wheelers, for example. >>> For most cars, struts offer better control and economics, however >>> this is entirely unrelated to drive shafts. Cars, trucks, etc. >>> still use drive shafts in torsion. A long time ago a lot of cars >>> used chains, and actually some 3 wheelers still do, but shafts and >>> gears have displaced chains. >>>> That they exist and that they don't command any significant >>>> market share is an indication of design flaws, be they >>>> mechanical, economic or a pain to change a flat tire. >>> By this reasoning, Lamborghinis must make really sucky cars. >> As a former employee of two different Lamborghini repair shops, I >> concur.... > What about the tractors: http://www.samedeutz-fahr.com/lamborghini/ You'll notice that no major car manufacturers uses torsion bar suspension, nor push rod and hydraulic valve lifters, air cooled engines and a pile of other great ideas that came along in the development of todays cars. Even Porsche has scrapped torsion bars and air cooled engines. http://www.performancealloys.com/loweringkits_springs.asp The best car Porsche built was under Ernst Fuhrmann, the 928 that came before its time and was killed by the faithful, who believed in rear engine, air cooling, torsion bar suspension and a slew of other anachronisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_928 Tanks use torsion bar suspension because they have an armored hull of enormous strength and demand concealed and protected suspension. Jobst Brandt         Date: 08 Jun 2007 08:36:05 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Drive shaft jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > You'll notice that no major car manufacturers uses torsion bar > suspension, nor push rod and hydraulic valve lifters, air cooled > engines and a pile of other great ideas that came along in the > development of todays cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_lifters "Cars of today (through 2007) with Hydraulic Lifters include (Whether Roller type or Pivot type): All Ford F150s (V6 or V8), Rangers (V6), Mustangs, Aston Martin All GM/Chevy Trucks (V8), Envoys, Trailblazers (V6), Corvette etc... Toyota Tundra(V8) All Dodge trucks (V8), Jeeps (V6 & V8) and yes all of the Hemi engines Most Mercedes V6 & V8 engines Most Audi V6 & V8 engines"         Date: 08 Jun 2007 08:04:17 From: M-gineering Subject: Re: Drive shaft jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > > You'll notice that no major car manufacturers uses torsion bar > suspension, anti-roll bar ? -- /Marten info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl         Date: 07 Jun 2007 20:46:43 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Drive shaft jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Tom Sherman writes: > >>>>> reasons why car manufacturers do not use torsion bar suspension, >>>>> like the ones I designed at Porsche, is that they require large >>>>> torsional anchors at both ends, ones that convert torsion to >>>>> linear force. This costs weight in levers and heavy bearings and >>>>> money. > >>>> The comparison of torsion bars used in suspension to drive shafts >>>> is meaningless. In any event, torsion bars are still used with >>>> certain suspension/wheel geometries, three wheelers, for example. >>>> For most cars, struts offer better control and economics, however >>>> this is entirely unrelated to drive shafts. Cars, trucks, etc. >>>> still use drive shafts in torsion. A long time ago a lot of cars >>>> used chains, and actually some 3 wheelers still do, but shafts and >>>> gears have displaced chains. > >>>>> That they exist and that they don't command any significant >>>>> market share is an indication of design flaws, be they >>>>> mechanical, economic or a pain to change a flat tire. > >>>> By this reasoning, Lamborghinis must make really sucky cars. > >>> As a former employee of two different Lamborghini repair shops, I >>> concur.... > >> What about the tractors: > > http://www.samedeutz-fahr.com/lamborghini/ > > You'll notice that no major car manufacturers uses torsion bar > suspension, that's primarily because of cost. function enters into it, but if it happened to be cheap, you'd most definitely still see it. > nor push rod er, because we now have overhead cams? > and hydraulic valve lifters, cost. > air cooled > engines cost is a significant factor here, although control does come into it. > and a pile of other great ideas that came along in the > development of todays cars. Even Porsche has scrapped torsion bars > and air cooled engines. > > http://www.performancealloys.com/loweringkits_springs.asp > > The best car Porsche built was under Ernst Fuhrmann, the 928 but jobst, the suspension on that vehicle ignores some of the suspension basics - that of locating the suspension link bushings parallel to the swing axis instead of positioned to compensate for elastic deflection. if this is alien to you, look under a honda to see it done right. > that came > before its time and was killed by the faithful, who believed in rear > engine, air cooling, torsion bar suspension and a slew of other > anachronisms. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_928 > > Tanks use torsion bar suspension because they have an armored hull of > enormous strength and demand concealed and protected suspension. > > Jobst Brandt     Date: 06 Jun 2007 18:16:29 From: Nexus7 Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 6, 12:05 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote: > Getting back to shaft drive -- for one thing, a shaft drive bicycle > requires two 90 degree geared joints in the drivetrain, each of > which is a lot less efficient than a chain Not sure where this nonsense about 90 degree joints comes from, but the chainistas recite it as gospel. Straight and spiral bevel (as used in shaft drive pictures posted by carlfogel@comcast.net) gears are pure rolling geometries. It is hypoid and worm gears that have higher losses. Here is a textbook link from a cursory search showing 98-99% efficiency. http://info.lu.farmingdale.edu/~ibrahiaz/MET308/Elements%20of%20Gears%20Technology(1-1).htm > figures. Some 90 degree gear drives I've been looking at > lately (for marine use) have barely 90% efficiency -- each. Not enough detail about the specific configuration and application for this info to be relevant. A typical > bicycle chain drive is 98-99% efficient, unless it's cross-chained and > dirty, when it drops to about 90%. Dream on. More like 80-98%, see http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf > So compared to a chain drive, a shaft > drive bicycle feels like pedaling through mud (I know, because I've tried > a couple). Perhaps then not let common perceptions overcome your actual experiences?       Date: 06 Jun 2007 13:42:02 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:16:29 -0000, Nexus7 <ac25kV@yahoo.com > wrote: >On Jun 6, 12:05 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote: >> Getting back to shaft drive -- for one thing, a shaft drive bicycle >> requires two 90 degree geared joints in the drivetrain, each of >> which is a lot less efficient than a chain > >Not sure where this nonsense about 90 degree joints comes from, but >the chainistas recite it as gospel. Straight and spiral bevel (as used >in shaft drive pictures posted by carlfogel@comcast.net) gears are >pure rolling geometries. It is hypoid and worm gears that have higher >losses. Here is a textbook link from a cursory search showing 98-99% >efficiency. > http://info.lu.farmingdale.edu/~ibrahiaz/MET308/Elements%20of%20Gears%20Technology(1-1).htm > >> figures. Some 90 degree gear drives I've been looking at >> lately (for marine use) have barely 90% efficiency -- each. > >Not enough detail about the specific configuration and application for >this info to be relevant. > >A typical >> bicycle chain drive is 98-99% efficient, unless it's cross-chained and >> dirty, when it drops to about 90%. > >Dream on. More like 80-98%, see > http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf > >> So compared to a chain drive, a shaft >> drive bicycle feels like pedaling through mud (I know, because I've tried >> a couple). > >Perhaps then not let common perceptions overcome your actual >experiences? Dear Nx & Matt, For whatever they're worth, these are probably the old shaft-drve pictures mentioned: http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/1718.htm http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/pic/?o=1gci&pic_id=120248&v=EK&size=large http://www.europacycle.com/DSCF0027.JPG http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/1631.htm http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/1604.htm http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1903tri1.htm They all seem to be gear-drive. Major Taylor rode on a different design, using roller pins instead of gear teeth. Here's a picture of Major Taylor on a Sager chainless: http://www.ltolman.org/chainless-b2.jpg Look closely--that ain't no normal shaft drive. Apart from using _three_ drive-side shafts and frame tubes, Taylor's bike doesn't use bevel gears. One history says that this odd Sager design helped: "Chainless bicycles made a mark in racing--widely considered the testing ground for legitimate bicycle technology--the following year [1898] when a mechanic named Harry Sager replaced the teeth of the gears with 'roller pins' in a device that reduced friction." --p. 84 "The American Bicycle" by Pridmore & Hurd http://books.google.com/books?id=UGIBiPNqaR0C&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=sager+chainless&source=web&ots=wxcU7XkAzU&sig=WTjCBZCs-sRdkFLWq1G1hiMHE9o But Frank Berto disagreed and thought spin-rollers were awful: "Shaft-drives are an elegant alternative to chains. Shaft drives require precision-cut bevel gears and quality bearings, which makes them much more expensive than a chain-drive. The spin roller was cruder and less efficient." --"Dancing Chain," p. 359 To clear up the disagreement, we turn to that hotbed of avant-garde technology, "Outing" magazine, which described _two_ kinds of roller drives that were causing excitement at the 1899 version of InterBike: http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_33/outXXXIII06/outXXXIII06zk.pdf Taylor's Sager has its "rollers" sticking sideways out of the hub like posts. Possibly this is more efficient and is what Pridmore & Hurd had in mind. The Victor Spinroller, on the other hand, seems to do nothing more than substitute rollers for the teeth of solid-cut bevel gears. This may be the cheaper, cruder, and less efficient approach that Berto has in mind. Both designs talk about rollers, so they're hard to untangle without pictures. Cheers, Carl Fogel     Date: 05 Jun 2007 14:23:02 From: Nexus7 Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 4, 6:53 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > Most sources that discuss the 1890's shaft drive bikes mention power > losses and rear-wheel-removal as the problems. None that I've seen > mention springiness or mechanical failure--those seem to be modern Strange that these objections come up, because modern materials are much better that those of the 1800s. My shaft-drive, for example, uses one arm fo the rear fork for a shaft tube, and from the statements about drive train and frame flex here, you'd expect it to be a quivering mess. While I'm not the heaviest person around, the slopes are pretty uneventful, including one that is a bike path up a grade used for toboggan slides (in the forest preserve at Devon & Caldwell in Chicago).     Date: 05 Jun 2007 14:08:38 From: Nexus7 Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 4, 10:57 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > reasons why car manufacturers do not use torsion bar suspension, like > the ones I designed at Porsche, is that they require large torsional > anchors at both ends, ones that convert torsion to linear force. This > costs weight in levers and heavy bearings and money. The comparison of torsion bars used in suspension to drive shafts is meaningless. In any event, torsion bars are still used with certain suspension/wheel geometries, three wheelers, for example. For most cars, struts offer better control and economics, however this is entirely unrelated to drive shafts. Cars, trucks, etc. still use drive shafts in torsion. A long time algo a lot of cars used chains, and actually some 3 wheelers still do, but shafts and gears have displaced chains. > That they exist and that they don't command any significant market > share is an indication of design flaws, be they mechanical, economic > or a pain to change a flat tire. By this reasoning, Lamborghinis must make really sucky cars.       Date: 06 Jun 2007 13:05:55 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:08:38 +0000, Nexus7 wrote: > On Jun 4, 10:57 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >> reasons why car manufacturers do not use torsion bar suspension, like >> the ones I designed at Porsche, is that they require large torsional >> anchors at both ends, ones that convert torsion to linear force. This >> costs weight in levers and heavy bearings and money. > > The comparison of torsion bars used in suspension to drive shafts is > meaningless. In any event, torsion bars are still used with certain > suspension/wheel geometries, three wheelers, for example. For most > cars, struts offer better control and economics, however this is > entirely unrelated to drive shafts. Cars, trucks, etc. still use drive > shafts in torsion. A long time algo a lot of cars used chains, and > actually some 3 wheelers still do, but shafts and gears have > displaced chains. > >> That they exist and that they don't command any significant market >> share is an indication of design flaws, be they mechanical, economic >> or a pain to change a flat tire. > > By this reasoning, Lamborghinis must make really sucky cars. As a former employee of two different Lambhorgini repair shops, I concur. Getting back to shaft drive -- for one thing, a shaft drive bicycle requires two 90 degree geared joints in the drivetrain, each of which is a lot less efficient than a chain, a lot more expensive to make, and a lot heavier. Perhaps a day-to-day mechanical engineer among us can produce some figures. Some 90 degree gear drives I've been looking at lately (for marine use) have barely 90% efficiency -- each. A typical bicycle chain drive is 98-99% efficient, unless it's cross-chained and dirty, when it drops to about 90%. So compared to a chain drive, a shaft drive bicycle feels like pedaling through mud (I know, because I've tried a couple). Plus, this doesn't even consider multiple gears. I suppose a hub gear system could be used, but these are inefficient, heavy, and expensive themselves. Matt O.         Date: 12 Jun 2007 02:59:45 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Jun 11, 1:18 am, Jobst Brandt wrote: > ... > GM is living in the past and emulates Harley Davidson, with antique > tractor engines that use gearing to get the wheels to turn fast enough > to achieve speeds that no one drives. I haven't seen a sports car go > nearly as fast as some small sedans when I bicycle in the Santa Cruz > mountains. I have never seen a fast Corvette in the mountains, > anywhere. I thought the point of the Corvette was to pick up women with fake blond hair and fake breasts, not to go fast in the real world? I have found small, gray, unmodified, four-door sedans the best for going fast in the real world, since no one notices such vehicles. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful         Date: 06 Jun 2007 11:39:34 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:05:55 -0400, Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote: >On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:08:38 +0000, Nexus7 wrote: > >> On Jun 4, 10:57 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >>> reasons why car manufacturers do not use torsion bar suspension, like >>> the ones I designed at Porsche, is that they require large torsional >>> anchors at both ends, ones that convert torsion to linear force. This >>> costs weight in levers and heavy bearings and money. >> >> The comparison of torsion bars used in suspension to drive shafts is >> meaningless. In any event, torsion bars are still used with certain >> suspension/wheel geometries, three wheelers, for example. For most >> cars, struts offer better control and economics, however this is >> entirely unrelated to drive shafts. Cars, trucks, etc. still use drive >> shafts in torsion. A long time algo a lot of cars used chains, and >> actually some 3 wheelers still do, but shafts and gears have >> displaced chains. >> >>> That they exist and that they don't command any significant market >>> share is an indication of design flaws, be they mechanical, economic >>> or a pain to change a flat tire. >> >> By this reasoning, Lamborghinis must make really sucky cars. > >As a former employee of two different Lambhorgini repair shops, I >concur. > >Getting back to shaft drive -- for one thing, a shaft drive bicycle >requires two 90 degree geared joints in the drivetrain, each of >which is a lot less efficient than a chain, a lot more expensive to make, >and a lot heavier. > >Perhaps a day-to-day mechanical engineer among us can produce some >figures. Some 90 degree gear drives I've been looking at >lately (for marine use) have barely 90% efficiency -- each. A typical >bicycle chain drive is 98-99% efficient, unless it's cross-chained and >dirty, when it drops to about 90%. So compared to a chain drive, a shaft >drive bicycle feels like pedaling through mud (I know, because I've tried >a couple). Plus, this doesn't even consider multiple gears. I >suppose a hub gear system could be used, but these are inefficient, heavy, >and expensive themselves. > >Matt O. Dear Matt, Kyle and Berto measured a 27-speed Shimano's efficiency. The raw figures (fig. 11) bounced around from 89.5% to 95%, with a theoretical 2.0% to 2.5% increase to account for the test equipment. Theoretical (meaning corrected) efficiency in 44x16 (fig. 19) rose from 94% to 98% as power rose from 50 to 300 watts. http://www.ihpva.org/pubs/HP52.pdf Spicer measured chain efficiency with a derailleur. His figures for fairly low power (100 to 175 watts) bounce around 88.7% to 98.2% (table 1). The higher the rpm for a given power, the lower the chain tension, and the less efficient it is--spinning has its disadvantages. For example, 100 watts at 50 rpm in 52-21 was 95.2% efficient, but dropped to 92.0% at 70 rpm. Table 2 shows such low-power differences even more clearly. At 100 watts with various lubes, 40 rpm in 52x15 was 94.0~95.6% efficient. The same feeble 100 watts dropped to 86.5%~88.8% efficiency at 80 rpm. More power increases chain efficiency, and there may be a correction factor that would raise the efficiency, so things are probably not as bad as they seem. http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf I'd love to see a shaft drive and a no-idler fixie included in such tests of chains and hub gears, with 60-90 rpm and 100 to 400 watts. I suspect that this is the most efficient bicycle transmission: http://www.jimlangley.net/ride/singerbritishchallenge.html Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 30 May 2007 13:38:52 From: Sheldon Brown Subject: Re: Drive shaft Quoth Dieter Britz: > A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that > had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor > bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have > to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at > each turn. > What is the story? Shaft drive was briefly popular around 1899-1900, but it was discovered to be considerably inferior to chain drive in practice. This design has been obsolete for over a century. Purveyors of shaft drive bikes often use misleading arguments to promote their products. See also: http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_sa-o.html#shaft Sheldon "Chains" Brown +--------------------------------------------------------------------+   Date: 29 May 2007 17:57:57 From: Phil Passmore Subject: Re: O/T reply Blip the throttle on a big Guzzi and I can promise you that the bike will twist (action and reaction with prop shaft going one way, the crank case and hence the bike will try to go the other). As bike steering geometry dictates that angle of lean affects yaw it therefore follows; blip throttle, bike yaws. The Guzzis' also exhibit an interesting characteristic of the shaft trying to 'climb' up it's pinion in the rear drive box on acceleration, making the rear end sit up as you gas it. The later models have been better in the latter respect, separating drive and swinging arm functions. -- Phil Passmore PPL(A)   Date: 27 May 2007 23:54:26 From: Michael Baldwin Subject: Re: O/T reply ..I've noted comments regarding shaft drive motorcycles and I'd like to clear up a few things... Having a bit of experience with shaft drive race bikes (motorcycles) their main "problem" is torque yaw. Sweeping, decreasing radius curves, can get interesting VERY quickly! My Moto Guzzi required extreme amounts of counter steering when accelerating hard out of a right-hand sweeper. I found my 1100 Suzuki Sport Tourer with shaft drive equally demanding even with it's inline 4 cylinder transverse engine versus the Guzzi's V-Twin longitudinal layout. I was, at one time, working on a Moto Guzzi flat tracker. The torque yaw really helped upon entry (go fast, turn left, repeat) however if the exit of the turn wasn't dry and slick, the bike was WICKED! ..anyway, I think a shaft drive - internal geared bicycle drivetrain will always have a limited yet wanting market... Best Regards Always Mike Baldwin     Date: 27 May 2007 21:31:49 From: jim beam Subject: Re: O/T reply Michael Baldwin wrote: > ..I've noted comments regarding shaft drive motorcycles and I'd like to > clear up a few things... > > Having a bit of experience with shaft drive race bikes (motorcycles) > their main "problem" is torque yaw. Sweeping, decreasing radius curves, > can get interesting VERY quickly! > > My Moto Guzzi required extreme amounts of counter steering when > accelerating hard out of a right-hand sweeper. I found my 1100 Suzuki > Sport Tourer with shaft drive equally demanding even with it's inline 4 > cylinder transverse engine versus the Guzzi's V-Twin longitudinal > layout. I was, at one time, working on a Moto Guzzi flat tracker. unless they affect frame stiffness, engine configuration doesn't have any influence on torque yaw. > The > torque yaw really helped upon entry (go fast, turn left, repeat) however > if the exit of the turn wasn't dry and slick, the bike was WICKED! but don't they have single rear swing arms? whether or not it's shaft drive would be neutral in this - it can't impart torque yaw in its own right. single rear swing arm and chain drive would yaw for the same reasons. > > ..anyway, I think a shaft drive - internal geared bicycle drivetrain > will always have a limited yet wanting market... > > Best Regards Always > > Mike Baldwin >       Date: 28 May 2007 06:58:43 From: Michael Baldwin Subject: Re: O/T reply ..thanks for the clarification Jim...LOL! ..I so enjoy the internet.... Best Regards Always Mike Baldwin   Date: 27 May 2007 07:45:35 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Drive shaft Dieter Britz wrote: > A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that > had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor > bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have > to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at > each turn. > What is the story? slightly reduced mechanical efficiency but reduced maintenance. like hub gears.     Date: 24 Jun 2007 18:11:43 From: meb Subject: Re: Drive shaft jim beam Wrote: > Dieter Britz wrote: > > A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that > > had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor > > bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have > > to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at > > each turn. > > What is the story? > > slightly reduced mechanical efficiency but reduced maintenance. like > hub gears. Is there any significant anticorrosion benefit for a commuter bike lef outsider or run often in the rain relative an easily rusted chain -- meb       Date: 24 Jun 2007 12:17:37 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:11:43 +1000, meb <meb.2soayo@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote: > >jim beam Wrote: >> Dieter Britz wrote: >> > A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that >> > had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor >> > bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have >> > to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at >> > each turn. >> > What is the story? >> >> slightly reduced mechanical efficiency but reduced maintenance. like >> hub gears. > >Is there any significant anticorrosion benefit for a commuter bike left >outsider or run often in the rain relative an easily rusted chain? Dear M, If you're asking whether a drive shaft's gears are less likely to corrode than a chain, here are some pictures of a slightly rusted old shaft drive: http://www.europacycle.com/DSCF0088.JPG http://www.europacycle.com/DSCF0089.JPG http://www.europacycle.com/DSCF0111.JPG And here are the innards of the shaft drive: http://www.europacycle.com/DSCF0027.JPG http://www.europacycle.com/DSCF0032.JPG Some details and more horrifying rust on that Columbia chainless #66: http://www.europacycle.com/bicycle_restoration.htm Unfortunately, the middle picture of part of the shaft drive on a workbench is mistakenly linked to a pink modern bicycle. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 24 Jun 2007 16:59:14 From: wizardB Subject: Re: Drive shaft meb wrote: > jim beam Wrote: >> Dieter Britz wrote: >>> A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that >>> had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor >>> bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have >>> to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at >>> each turn. >>> What is the story? >> slightly reduced mechanical efficiency but reduced maintenance. like >> hub gears. > > Is there any significant anticorrosion benefit for a commuter bike left > outsider or run often in the rain relative an easily rusted chain? > > Lube the chain   Date: 25 May 2007 16:02:56 From: catzz66 Subject: Re: Drive shaft Dieter Britz wrote: > A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that > had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor > bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have > to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at > each turn. > What is the story? Aren't most motorbikes (motorcycles) still belt drive or chain drive?     Date: 25 May 2007 15:37:36 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:02:56 -0500, catzz66 <catzz66@threeletterservice.com > wrote: >Dieter Britz wrote: >> A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that >> had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor >> bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have >> to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at >> each turn. >> What is the story? > >Aren't most motorbikes (motorcycles) still belt drive or chain drive? Dear C, Almost all off-road motorcycles still use chains. Over the last 30 years, the trend in street motorcycles is toward shaft drive. Google for motorcycle (to weed out ATVs), names like Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, and Suzuki, and shaft drive. For example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=motorcycle+yamaha+%22shaft+drive%22&btnG=Search In contrast, a bicycle with a shaft drive is a curiosity piece, which is why we like to squabble about them on RBT. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 27 May 2007 01:08:48 From: Philip Lee Subject: Re: Drive shaft carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:02:56 -0500, catzz66 > <catzz66@threeletterservice.com> wrote: > >>Dieter Britz wrote: >>> A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that >>> had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor >>> bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have >>> to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at >>> each turn. >>> What is the story? >> >>Aren't most motorbikes (motorcycles) still belt drive or chain drive? > > Dear C, > > Almost all off-road motorcycles still use chains. > > Over the last 30 years, the trend in street motorcycles is toward > shaft drive. > > Google for motorcycle (to weed out ATVs), names like Honda, Yamaha, > Kawasaki, and Suzuki, and shaft drive. > > For example: > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=motorcycle+yamaha+%22shaft+drive%22&btnG=Search > > In contrast, a bicycle with a shaft drive is a curiosity piece, which > is why we like to squabble about them on RBT. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Carl, A cursory check shows that the majority of *current* bikes out there are indeed still shaft and chain driven. This includes virtually all sportbikes and all non-military Harleys. BMW, among others, stands out as the main user of shaft drives in addition to more distance-oriented bikes for less maintenance, and current larger-bore cruisers. -- Phil         Date: 27 May 2007 05:56:10 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <46591273$0$9009$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, "Philip Lee" <nice@try.to > wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:02:56 -0500, catzz66 > > <catzz66@threeletterservice.com> wrote: > > > >>Dieter Britz wrote: > >>> A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that > >>> had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor > >>> bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have > >>> to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at > >>> each turn. > >>> What is the story? > >> > >>Aren't most motorbikes (motorcycles) still belt drive or chain drive? > > > > Dear C, > > > > Almost all off-road motorcycles still use chains. > > > > Over the last 30 years, the trend in street motorcycles is toward > > shaft drive. > > > > Google for motorcycle (to weed out ATVs), names like Honda, Yamaha, > > Kawasaki, and Suzuki, and shaft drive. > > > > For example: > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=motorcycle+yamaha+%22sha > > ft+drive%22&btnG=Search > > > > In contrast, a bicycle with a shaft drive is a curiosity piece, which > > is why we like to squabble about them on RBT. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Carl Fogel > > Carl, > > A cursory check shows that the majority of *current* bikes out there are > indeed still shaft and chain driven. This includes virtually all sportbikes > and all non-military Harleys. BMW, among others, stands out as the main > user of shaft drives in addition to more distance-oriented bikes for less > maintenance, and current larger-bore cruisers. Harley-Davidson uses belt drive on all their current models, wacky military-contract bikes excepted, but Buells included. BMW uses belt drive on their F-series, chain on their G-series, and shaft on the K- and R-bikes. The majority of sport bikes are chain-drive, with the Buells standing out as an exception, along with whichever BMW or Moto Guzzi you care to define as a sport bike. Note that nothing like a track or competition-oriented sport motorcycle (the serious 600cc sport bikes, for example) are belt or shaft driven. Dirt bikes are also mostly chain, with the belt and shaft driven exceptions all coming from BMW. As with sport bikes, the competition-oriented equipment is all chain-drive. One may wish to make an exception for BMW's Dakar entries, but I would tend not to. Belt drive is used on some commuter bicycles, mostly in Japan. It's clean, can be long-lived, and less efficient than a chain. I'm not sure how much less efficient. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos           Date: 29 May 2007 02:15:07 From: Phil, Non-Squid Subject: Re: Drive shaft Ryan Cousineau wrote: > In article <46591273$0$9009$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > "Philip Lee" <nice@try.to> wrote: > >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> > On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:02:56 -0500, catzz66 >> > <catzz66@threeletterservice.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Dieter Britz wrote: >> >>> A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here >> >>> that had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them >> >>> on motor bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I >> >>> imagine there have to be two right angle turns of the power >> >>> applied, losing a bit at each turn. >> >>> What is the story? >> >> >> >>Aren't most motorbikes (motorcycles) still belt drive or chain >> >>drive? >> > >> > Dear C, >> > >> > Almost all off-road motorcycles still use chains. >> > >> > Over the last 30 years, the trend in street motorcycles is toward >> > shaft drive. >> > >> > Google for motorcycle (to weed out ATVs), names like Honda, Yamaha, >> > Kawasaki, and Suzuki, and shaft drive. >> > >> > For example: >> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=motorcycle+yamaha+%22sha >> > ft+drive%22&btnG=Search >> > >> > In contrast, a bicycle with a shaft drive is a curiosity piece, >> > which is why we like to squabble about them on RBT. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Carl Fogel >> >> Carl, >> >> A cursory check shows that the majority of *current* bikes out there >> are indeed still shaft and chain driven. This includes virtually >> all sportbikes and all non-military Harleys. BMW, among others, >> stands out as the main user of shaft drives in addition to more >> distance-oriented bikes for less maintenance, and current >> larger-bore cruisers. > > Harley-Davidson uses belt drive on all their current models, wacky > military-contract bikes excepted, but Buells included. BMW uses belt > drive on their F-series, chain on their G-series, and shaft on the K- > and R-bikes. > > The majority of sport bikes are chain-drive, with the Buells standing > out as an exception, along with whichever BMW or Moto Guzzi you care > to define as a sport bike. Note that nothing like a track or > competition-oriented sport motorcycle (the serious 600cc sport bikes, > for example) are belt or shaft driven. > > Dirt bikes are also mostly chain, with the belt and shaft driven > exceptions all coming from BMW. As with sport bikes, the > competition-oriented equipment is all chain-drive. One may wish to > make an exception for BMW's Dakar entries, but I would tend not to. > > Belt drive is used on some commuter bicycles, mostly in Japan. It's > clean, can be long-lived, and less efficient than a chain. I'm not > sure how much less efficient. Whoops. I meant to say "belt and chain driven." -- Phil           Date: 27 May 2007 00:02:47 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On Sun, 27 May 2007 05:56:10 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote: >In article <46591273$0$9009$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > "Philip Lee" <nice@try.to> wrote: > >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> > On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:02:56 -0500, catzz66 >> > <catzz66@threeletterservice.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Dieter Britz wrote: >> >>> A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that >> >>> had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor >> >>> bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have >> >>> to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at >> >>> each turn. >> >>> What is the story? >> >> >> >>Aren't most motorbikes (motorcycles) still belt drive or chain drive? >> > >> > Dear C, >> > >> > Almost all off-road motorcycles still use chains. >> > >> > Over the last 30 years, the trend in street motorcycles is toward >> > shaft drive. >> > >> > Google for motorcycle (to weed out ATVs), names like Honda, Yamaha, >> > Kawasaki, and Suzuki, and shaft drive. >> > >> > For example: >> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=motorcycle+yamaha+%22sha >> > ft+drive%22&btnG=Search >> > >> > In contrast, a bicycle with a shaft drive is a curiosity piece, which >> > is why we like to squabble about them on RBT. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Carl Fogel >> >> Carl, >> >> A cursory check shows that the majority of *current* bikes out there are >> indeed still shaft and chain driven. This includes virtually all sportbikes >> and all non-military Harleys. BMW, among others, stands out as the main >> user of shaft drives in addition to more distance-oriented bikes for less >> maintenance, and current larger-bore cruisers. > >Harley-Davidson uses belt drive on all their current models, wacky >military-contract bikes excepted, but Buells included. BMW uses belt >drive on their F-series, chain on their G-series, and shaft on the K- >and R-bikes. > >The majority of sport bikes are chain-drive, with the Buells standing >out as an exception, along with whichever BMW or Moto Guzzi you care to >define as a sport bike. Note that nothing like a track or >competition-oriented sport motorcycle (the serious 600cc sport bikes, >for example) are belt or shaft driven. > >Dirt bikes are also mostly chain, with the belt and shaft driven >exceptions all coming from BMW. As with sport bikes, the >competition-oriented equipment is all chain-drive. One may wish to make >an exception for BMW's Dakar entries, but I would tend not to. > >Belt drive is used on some commuter bicycles, mostly in Japan. It's >clean, can be long-lived, and less efficient than a chain. I'm not sure >how much less efficient. Dear Ryan, And the majority of touring motorcycles from Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, and Kawasaki are shaft drive. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 27 May 2007 18:41:35 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Drive shaft In article <7m7i53h53qjc9legqt2hra6gor5p7p254r@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sun, 27 May 2007 05:56:10 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> > wrote: [a summary of motorcycle drivetrains] > Dear Ryan, > > And the majority of touring motorcycles from Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, > and Kawasaki are shaft drive. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Oh yeah, but nobody cares about touring bikes. :) In general, the heavier and less performance-oriented the bike, the more likely it will be shaft drive. The ease of maintenance of a shaft drive is so sweet. My first motorcycle was a Yamaha Vision 550. That bike couldn't keep itself in alternators, eventually rotted through its exhaust, and an electrical fire once spontaneously started in the wiring. But the shaft never gave a bit of trouble, and I don't even remember tire changes being problematic. After that, it was a succession of badly-maintained chain drives which seemed to give me nothing but trouble. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos   Date: 25 May 2007 16:46:07 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft A couple of URL's: http://www.sussex.com.tw/se2.htm http://www.showandgo.com.au/ebikes/shaft.htm?shaft_bf.htm~mainFrame Jobst Brandt     Date: 26 May 2007 06:30:12 From: John Henderson Subject: Re: Drive shaft jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > A couple of URL's: > > http://www.sussex.com.tw/se2.htm > > http://www.showandgo.com.au/ebikes/shaft.htm?shaft_bf.htm~mainFrame Another Australian site, this bike with a Sram S7 hub: http://tinyurl.com/sfrfv John   Date: 25 May 2007 16:38:48 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft Dieter Britz writes: > A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that > had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor > bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have > to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at > each turn. It isn't frictional losses that present a problem, but rather the demand for light weight while transmitting high torque. The torque is about as high as a motorcycle but the size and weight of the gears is about 1/10. > What is the story? If this worked reliably, you would see many more of them in use, connected to an internal hub gear. They are fragile and the drive shaft is in effect a torsion spring between pedal and wheel. It's a nice idea, but impractical. Jobst Brandt     Date: 30 May 2007 15:40:30 From: dvt Subject: Re: Drive shaft jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > ...the drive > shaft is in effect a torsion spring between pedal and wheel. True, but in the thread that Carl linked, we went through the calculations and found that the compliance of that spring was minuscule. See message 154 and preceding messages to see the calculations (and the embarrassing error I made). Hopefully this will convince you to stop dragging out that hoary old chestnut made of myth and lore. :^) -- Dave dvt at psu dot edu Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and novelist (1811-1896)     Date: 25 May 2007 12:05:06 From: Subject: Re: Drive shaft On 25 May 2007 16:38:48 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Dieter Britz writes: > >> A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that >> had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor >> bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have >> to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at >> each turn. > >It isn't frictional losses that present a problem, but rather the >demand for light weight while transmitting high torque. The torque is >about as high as a motorcycle but the size and weight of the gears is >about 1/10. > >> What is the story? > >If this worked reliably, you would see many more of them in use, >connected to an internal hub gear. They are fragile and the drive >shaft is in effect a torsion spring between pedal and wheel. > >It's a nice idea, but impractical. > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, We've been through this before: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/160fdec69cb96c03/22caf64dfefd5c10?lnk=gst&q=carl+major+taylor&rnum=1#22caf64dfefd5c10 Have you found some links to pictures of this fragility and unreliability? Any reports of Major Taylor's shaft-drive bike failing while he was winning races? Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 25 May 2007 16:18:38 From: Nigel Cliffe Subject: Re: Drive shaft Dieter Britz wrote: > A colleague at work tells me that there was a bike parked here that > had a drive shaft instead of a chain. I know they use them on motor > bikes, but how effective are these on bicycles? I imagine there have > to be two right angle turns of the power applied, losing a bit at > each turn. > What is the story? Seems to come round as a technical solution from time to time. We've had "zero" range of shaft driven bikes in the UK for a while, and there is a regular one in the work bike shed. Review here which seems fair: http://www.velovision.com/mag/issue10/shaftdrive.pdf - Nigel -- Nigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/