HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob@ncube.com (Bob Kehoe)
Subject: Honda to Indy?
Organization: nCUBE Computers, Beaverton, Oregon, U.S.A.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:46:19 GMT

Even though Honda's F1 engine program is now "officially" dead,
I hear that the factory engineers who have been working the last
several years in England are remaining there for the purpose of
working with the engines to run on methanol.

Now, name all the racing series that utilize methanol fuel, and
I think you can deduce which direction Honda is going in racing.

-cball-
From: svissa@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sirish Vissa)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport
Subject: Re: F1 Portugal: Patrese incident
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:03:55 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

C'mon people, I dont think that Berger would do a thing like that as a prank
or  anything else. Atleast not in an openwheel car. He or any other F1 
driver ( some incidents like Prost Senna in Suzuka excluded ) would _not_
pull a stunt like that on purpose. They are in a dangerous profession, and I 
dont think that they would increase the risk involved on purpose. He  said it 
was an accident and I am willing to take this as the truth. Patrese even said
that it was an accident and was pissed of because Berger did not raise his hand.


 So how about starting thread.  
   How abotu Al jr talking with Frank Williams. The driver announcement is 
supposed to be made next weekend. (according to AutoWeek) 
                   Later
                  Sirish
 Flame Protection Status = FULL

-- 
| Sirish 'RACE OR DIE' Vissa                       |--\__            _____  |
| Gen II  Motorsports, India              /-------|     \---\       /  27 | |
| svissa@mentor.cc.purdue.edu        /--\/__/-----------------\_ /--\\----/ |
| sirish@mn.ecn.purdue.edu       _/_|_()_|__|##|_FERRARI______|:|_()_|      |
From: msjohnso@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport
Subject: Re: What is indy car about....
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:02:11 GMT
Reply-To: msjohnso@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson)
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS


More information on Indy and fuels...

Unless the action has been taken relatively recently (last 5-7 years)
Indy car rules do NOT ban the use of gasoline. Any fuel is allowable;
it's just that everybody in recent years has burned methanol because it's
best suited for the engines they're using. CART may have changed this.

During the 1940's and 1950's Cummins sponsored several Diesel powered 
Indy cars; none were truly competitive but all were more-or-less successful,
in that they were durable enough to be running at the finish. These vehicles
were one of the reasons that mandatory pit stops were established. They 
did well enough in fuel economy that the old 75 gallon tanks (pre-1974)
would allow them to finish the race non-stop. Unfortunately, they were 
heavy enough that they wore out tires instead. :-(.

The Granatelli turbine cars burned either kerosene or unleaded gasoline,
at various times. I would not be surprised to find that somebody had tried
ethanol, and it used to be common practice to load up on nitromethane during
qualifying runs. [Which, I suppose, had much to do with the necessity for
carburetion runs before the race, since nitro needs to be much richer than
straight methanol. It was necessary, evidently, to make sure the fuel system
had been properly leaned out.]

[Disclaimer:  I may be completely wrong on my assessment of current rules.
I have been following Indy car racing for 30+ years and I stand by my history]
-- 
Mark Johnson                          USnail: NCR Peripheral Products Division
E-mail:  Mark.Johnson@WichitaKS.NCR.COM       3718 N. Rock Rd.
Voice: (316) 636-8189 [V+ 654-8189]           Wichita, KS  67226
[Non-business email: 76670.1775@compuserve.com]
From: conrad@pico.OZ (Conrad Drake)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport
Subject: F1:  McLaren to buy Ligier ? Williams to buy Haas
Date: 29 Sep 92 05:30:18 GMT
Reply-To: conrad@pico.qpsx.oz.au
Organization: QPSX Communications
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

bspahh@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Andrew Henry) writes:
: The Motoring News has a good rumour:
: 
: There is "rampant speculation in F1 circles that Ron Dennis is
: trying to purchase Ligier" ... to get a decent engine.
While watching Esterol last night, Mssrs Hunt, Walker & (local
commentator) Alan Jones pushed that rumour.  And also the rumour that
Williams may try to buy Newman/Haas to get Mansell back.  Seriously!

--
"There's something stirring in my loins and it isn't the spirit of Jesus"
                - Helen Razor, JJJ announcer, 1992.

Email: conrad@pico.qpsx.oz.au
Snail: QPSX Communications, Private Bag 24, West Perth 6005, Australia. 
Numbers:(ph) +61 9 324 1641, (fx) +61 9 321 2984 (dod) 0604

Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: FWD vs. RWD, Which is best.
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:44:22 GMT

salil@igor.tamri.com (Salil Saxena) writes:
: 
: Additional RWD models still sold (please feel free to add to this list):
[...]
: 4.  Alfa Spider.

This is the last year for "real" spiders.  I've read that 93 spiders
are going to be based on the FWD alfa 164.  :(

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  If I felt any more
Rosemount Inc.                                |SOPHISTICATED I would DIE of
                                              |EMBARRASSMENT!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: 55:  And Then There Were (Please Help)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:03:15 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Sep27.204311.7415@cs.yale.edu> fields-doug@CS.YALE.EDU (Doug Fields) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.200646.10875@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>
>[WRT Penn having 65 mph speed limit.]
>
>Definately not!!!
>
>Pennsylvania has those beautiful green and yellow signs that let you know
>that "Pennsylvania state speed limit STILL 55 MPH!!!"

Oh well.

MD has yellow and black signs which say "STILL!" located above the
speed limit 55 signs at various places (state borders, near airports,
at the start of I-270).  Just good old Gov Schaefer thumbing his nose
at the citizens of the state.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry)
Subject: Re: Tailgaters abound!
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:52:23 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
	<ILH.92Sep24180421@winnie-the-pooh.lcs.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep25.143102.16803@osf.org>
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Sep25.143102.16803@osf.org> kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup) writes:
 > In article <ILH.92Sep24180421@winnie-the-pooh.lcs.mit.edu>
 > ilh@lcs.mit.edu writes:
 > >Once you reach stop-and-go, throughput is terrible, causing more stop-and-go
 > >(positive feedback).  They studied standing waves of stop-and-go that
 > >persisted for hours after the accident had been removed.  Sometimes these
 > >waves even travelled backwards significant distances.
 > 
 > Everyone together now: Driver Stupidity. This makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense!  Take an extremely simplistic model.
Suppose that when one care starts to decelerate, it takes a small
period of time (say ten seconds on average... assuming fairly light
traffic) for the driver behind to recognize this and start to react.
And when a stopped car starts to move again, suppose the driver
immediately behind recognizes and begins acting on this fact in about
one second.

Now suppose there's a collision that stops traffic for a short time.
Knowledge of this collision passes from driver to driver through the
accumulating backup.  Each driver "learns" of the collision when they
recognize that the driver in front has started to slow down (they may
not really know there's a collision... I just mean that they receive
their first piece of information that's causally linked to the fact
that there was a collision).  Now after fifteen minutes the collision
gets cleaned up, and drivers start moving forward, and "knowledge" of
the clearing moves backward through the pack.  But by this time,
roughly 90 cars (one every 10 seconds) have "learned" of the collision
and are stopped or stopping.  It'll take 90 seconds for the all-clear
information to reach back this far, and in that time, 9 other cars
will have queued up.  The collision continues to "capture" new cars
even after it's been cleared.

The above numbers were quite conservative.  Fifteen minutes to clear
up a bad accident in heavy traffic is extremely fast, and the effects
of a long-term lane closure in traffic that was already at the
capacity of the existing lanes can be far more devastating.  And the
ten-second and 1-second propagation rates were intended to be very
optimistic.  Admittedly, the model is very simplistic.  But I think
it's fairly evident, when you think of it as a problem of information
propagation, that delayed effects like this should be expected.
--
Andy Lowry, lowry@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7925
IBM Research, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: geoff@ITcorp.com (Geoff Kuenning)
Subject: Re: Tailgaters abound!
Organization: Interrupt Technology Corporation, Chatsworth, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 07:27:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.233110.21455@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> kiel_jeff@macmail1.rtsg.mot.com writes:

> No matter who is right or wrong, the end result is that those who wait to the
> last minute to merge get to work 10-20 minutes faster.

Usually, I try to pretend that the assholes who cut everyone else off
are normally well-behaved, and just have an emergency that day, like a
big presentation or a family member in the hospital.  Mostly I'm
wrong, but every once in a while people really *do* have a good reason
for such antisocial behavior.  And if not, then as an ex-girlfriend of
mine put it so succinctly:

    "Oh well, even assholes have to get to work on time."
-- 
	Geoff Kuenning   geoff@ITcorp.com   uunet!desint!geoff
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: colombo@bronco.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Signalling one's desire to pass
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:42:24 GMT

In article <1addqnINNa66@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>, mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
> Hi Y'all...
> 
> I was driving to work in the dark (literally) this morning, 
> and I came upon a car that was moving about 5 mph under the
> speed limit in the left lane. He was not beside anyone, and
> he was not proceeding past any of the traffic in the right
> lane. There was room to move over and pass, but I figured
> I'd give protocol a try...
> 
> I thought to myself "Self, how'd you like to get hit from be-
> hind by bright lights off a vehicle that is a good 2 feet hi-
> gher than your own?" Self answered "I'd be pissed.". So, I
> thought "Self, how can we make this guy aware that we're here,
> and would really like to pass, without pissing him off?".
> Self said "Try turning your headlights off, then back on.".
> 

I find that being 2 feet higher is usually imposing enough to move
these people over, that and my bumper mounted winch.  There's something
about looking in one's mirror and seeing nothing but hardware. :-)

I think the flash-to-pass feature is/was to be used when you are
pulling out from behind a vehicle (on a two-lane road), although
many people use it to get someone to move out of the *hammer* lane.
Actually, I think the latter is illegal, at least around here.

 ___________________________________________________________________________
 *****  *   *  From the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo CD/DCD/DSG    *    *
 *      **  *  Fermi Nat'l Acc'l Lab   708-840-8225 Fermilab     * *   *
 ***    * * *  P.O. Box 500   MS 369   Feynman Computer Center  *****  *
 *      *  **  Batavia, Ill. USA 60510 Colombo@fnal.fnal.gov    *   *  *****
 *  Sure to get `Flamed' if I didn't cross all my i's and dot all my t's ;-)
From: met@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Meteorology General)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Signalling one's desire to pass
Date: 2 Oct 92 08:45:49 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne Dept of Meteorology


 In article <1992Oct1.163946.1@bronco.fnal.gov> colombo@bronco.fnal.gov writes:
 >Anyway, the problem in the USA is that it's generally considered
 >annoying by the driver being flashed.  

The thing that interests me is that you have all been talking about
flashing from behind. What about flashing from the front (and no 
smart alec comments about boiled lollies etc please). Here in Australia
it is a general practice in most areas to flash your highbeams at 
oncoming traffic if there is a cop with radar or a speed camera 
located on their side of the road that you have just passed 
coming the other way. Just the other day I saw Mr Plod parked
with speed camera in a 60 kph zone (which should have been 75 IMHO)
waiting for the poor sods coming the other way. A quick flash of the 
lights to the advancing speedsters (who were all doing a sensible and
safe 70-75), and they all hit the brakes (I could see this in the 
rear-view mirror). Everyone waved and acknowledged - they all knew
what i meant - and I trust that they will probably do it for me 
when the situation is reversed. However i have heard that if you 
get caught flashing oncoming drivers you can be nicked for obstructing
the police in their work. Has anyone else heard of this?




Andrew B. Watkins                    |    `To strive, to seek, to find and
awatkins@mullara.met.unimelb.edu.au  |     not to yield'  
awatkins@buster.met.unimelb.edu.au   |                  - Lord Tennyson 



Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Re: Tailgaters abound!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:41:59 GMT

In article <BvAKwr.Fq0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep27.203455.11258@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>
>>Nope, it does.  Traffic has wavelike behavior.
>"Laminar flow" is the term I've heard used most often.
>Someone wanna tell us lay people what that really means? ;-)

     "Laminar" in this context is used to describe smooth flows of
fluid. It is the opposite of "turbulent". The term derives from the
way the flow can be treated as a series of layers (lamina), each
moving only slightly faster or slower than the adjacent layers.

     Laminar flow turns turbulent when portions of the flow are forced
into sudden changes in direction. Vortices form, become
self-propagating, and the lamina disappear into chaos.

     A simplistic treatment of traffic flow is as an ideal Newtonian
liquid. In reality it deviates in many cases, acting more like a
thixotropic fluid.

							Peter 
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,sci.physics
From: teek@kingcong.UWaterloo.ca (Prateek Dwivedi)
Subject: Re: LIDAR workings (was Re: Laser Jammer Sighting?)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:12:26 GMT


I'm interested in knowing if the laser doesn't work on different types of
paint jobs.

If laser works on reflecting light.... then if I have a "buff" black car
that absorbs most light...would I be stealth.

Another thought re: laser detectors.  Are they only working on deflection
from atmosphere particles?  Or does it work on the laser hitting the car
itself.  The latter would be too late, wouldn't it?
-- 
Teek (Prateek Dwivedi)                  teek@kingcong.uwaterloo.ca
Research Assistant                      pdwivedi@systems.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
Flight Control Systems Group            (519)885-1211 x5314     Voice
University of Waterloo, Canada          (519)746-3077           Fax
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: SPEECH ON SPEEDING W/IMPUNITY
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:19:53 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


In article <1992Oct5.024440.28499@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> kappa@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Glenn Capuano) writes:
>> 
>> I get the impression that many people who have been raised on expressway
>> driving just can't deal with a 2 lane road. They'll come up behind a
>> slower vehicle and just stay there, rather than pass it. I'm sure part
>> of the problem is the Geo Metros some of these folks drive; in this
>			^^^^^^^^^^please explain this term!

A Geo Metro is a very small, very fuel-efficient car. Like most
ultra-high-efficiency cars, it's tiny engine is not much on acceleration
(unless, of course, you add NITRO. ;-)
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Radar drones in SD
Date: 26 Sep 92 08:54:33 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:

>> This could be interesting.  Seems that I've seen articles regarding the FCC
>> coming down rather firmly on drones before...  Net wisdom, anyone?

>It was around Atlanta, if I remember right.. If John D'armand is around, 
>I think he knew the details.

I wasn't sure enough of the details to post so here goes nothing.
Yes the GHP did set up some obsolete radar units on some overpasses.
Yes the FCC did come down on them.  This was tied in with the fact that
the FCC engineer in charge here in Atlanta got stopped on a radar trap
and proceeded to retaliate by citing the department for operating without
a radiolocation license.  Whether his vindictivness extended to 
taking out the radar is unknown.

Here are some relevant facts.  First, the operation of such a unit 
may fall under the requirements of licensing for radiolocation service.
I've gotten conflicting opinions from two FCC people.  One said that 
radar falls under Part 15, the other sent me radiolocation license forms.
In any event, a radiolocation license is complicated, requiring almost
as much work as for a radio station, judging by the venerable book of
forms.  It is unlikely 500 microwave RF sources have been properly licensed
and coordinated for the service.

It is a fact that malicious or intentional intereference is 
illegal. This is obviously intentional intereference. Whether Uncle 
Sugar would pursue a case against the pigs is another matter.
If the pigs claim Part 15 status, then they must comform to the part that
prohibits them from causing intereference of any kind.

Beacon transmitters are generally not licensed for anything other than 
navigation and radiolocation and the ham service.  This fits in none 
of these catagories.  My guess is some government zealot just got the
things and had 'em bolted on. Maybe a legal challenge would be in order.

Hmm, looks like it's time to resurrect the old 3-D Pig-stomper, also known
as SLAP'M (Shoulder Launched Anti Pig Missile), basically a small 
Anti-Radiation warhead attached to a LAW rocket and mounted on the 
front fenders.  One little 10 or 24 ghz bleep from the old pig-mobile
(or his surrogate in the dump truck) and seconds later the pig is .. 
er, ... Bacon.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: 55:  And Then There Were (Please Help)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:31:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.193106.27903@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Brian.E.Hannon@dartmouth.edu (Brian E. Hannon) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.191804.3309@photon.com>
>jbn@photon.photon.com (Joe Naiman) writes:
>
>> I thought that nine states still had 55:  Alaska and Delaware (with
>> no eligible roads), Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
>> Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey.  Should I eliminate one of
>> those states from the list?
>
>Hawaii and Alaska don't count since they don't have any eligible
>interstates.  But you forgot Massachusetts.  Funny how they're all in
>the northeast, huh?

Nope, as I understand it, there are now sections of the Mass Turnpike
that is 65 mph.  That happened earlier this year (1992).

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: csroach@eng.clemson.edu (Shane Roach)
Subject: Re: Laser Jammer Sighting?
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:29:56 GMT

From article <BvE9MG.FnJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, by tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan):
> 
> 
> LIDAR works in the infrared band. This device needs to emit lots of IR,
> NOT visible light, in order to drown out reflections from LIDAR guns.
 
I know that LIDAR operates in IR, but it seems as if something emitting a
substantial quantity of IR might also emit a little bit of visible, but
very dim, red light.  This might be especially so if it was an experimental
design, just working on the concept before polishing the product.

> Beyond that, why would it need to "scan" from side to side? Moving back
> and forth like that reduces the device's effectiveness: the device might
> be "looking" to the left when the LIDAR beam comes in from the right,
> making it totally useless. It would be better to have the emitter run the
> full width at all times, like a fluorescent light tube, therefore covering
> the entire front of the vehicle at all times. There would also probably
> be another one across the rear, perhaps hidden in the full-width
> spoiler. Above all, such a device would best be made stealthy, so that
> Officer Friendly won't pull you over and say "What's that thing? Looks
> illegal - I'm going to have to haul you downtown and have it impounded."
 
Why would it scan?  I dunno.  But the fact that this device was mounted on
a black car might give the driver enought of an advantage(in longer lock-on
times) that he could use a slower scan at this stage of development.  It  
probably would be better in terms of constant coverage to have the emitter
on full-width all the time, but this setup may yield a wider angle of cover-
age and use less power.  Also, I don't think it'd be difficult, with a little
work, to make the device stealthy.  This one seemed to be in the strip between
the combination lights, just above the upper air intake.  As for putting one
on the rear of the car, it would best be concealed on a new-style Z by placing
it between the taillights.  There's a handy black panel there, installed at
the factory.

> 
> I think it's fairly safe to say that this device was NOT a LIDAR jammer,
> or, if it is, it's a very poorly designed one.
> 
Maybe it is, maybe it ain't.  I don't know.  But in the event that it is, I
thought it would be nice to spread the word.