HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mja@philabs.philips.com (Michael Amato)
Subject: Re: Am I over driving in overdrive?
Originator: mja@hercules
Reply-To: mja@philabs.philips.com (Michael Amato)
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff, NY 10510
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:51:42 GMT


In article <1992Aug11.201333.28419@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, jrd@po.CWRU.Edu (John R. Daker) writes:
|> 
|> In a previous article, Brian.E.Hannon@dartmouth.edu (Brian E. Hannon) says:
|> 
|> >In article <4293@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
|> >mpc+@pitt.edu (Mike Contento) writes:
|> >
|> >>  I have been using overdrive almost
|> >>       exclusively the past year, except for driving up steep hills or on 
|> >>       wet roads. Can someone tell me, specifically when to use or not to
|> >>       use overdrive?
|> >
|> >Perfect.  If the car has trouble picking a gear on a hill, the roads
|> >are wet or snowy and you want more engine braking, or you're towing a
|> >trailer are the main reasons to use regular drive.  Otherwise OD is
|> >more efficient, a little smoother, and has a faster top speed.
|>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> Since when?  Overdrive implies a grater than 1:1 gear ratio.  Case study:
|> Corvette with the 6-speed.  Wile the theoretical tope speed in 6th gear
|> is something totally unrealistic (like 240 mph), actual top speed is
|> attained in 5th gear.
|> 
|> Although I believe 5th is also an overdrive.  Oh what the F$%^!  Those
|> of you who know what I'm trying to say, please say it for me.

As the friction forces increase with speed (drag, rolling resistance, etc)
the required power input from the motor will increase. If you are way over 
geared then the engine may be operating in a non-optimal RPM range (not
fuel efficiency, but peak torque or horse power). I'm sure someone will
correct me if I am wrong.

|> -- 
|> ...............................DarkMan..................................
|> Trying to think of something profound to put here.  Also available for
|> advertisements at a reasonable cost.                       DoD# 650
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Amato  DoD#0639 | "If pro is the opposite of con,       |
| mja@philabs.philips.com | then what is Congress"? - Will Rogers |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: hagger@cs.umd.edu (Paul Hagger)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Tailgaters abound!
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:55:38 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

!In article <BtCqEw.2y2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:

!In article <1992Aug20.170518.11698@cbfsb.cb.att.com> ashaw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (andrew.shaw) writes:
!!From article <Bt9CHH.I4n@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, by khan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman):
!!! derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Derek Tearne) writes:
!!! 
!!! Actually, it's only a 2-second rule up to maybe 45MPH, after which you're
!!! better off with a FOUR second following distance. 
!!
!!I thought the advantage to the 2-second (as opposed to the older
!!n-car-lengths) rule was that it was speed-invariant.  Thus 2 seconds
!!at 30mph gives you 88 feet to stop in, while 2 seconds at 60mph gives
!!you 176 feet.
!
!Let's examine this statement more closely.
!
!According to a recent test of four sports cars by Consumer reports(*), a
!Mazda RX-7 has a braking distance of 119 feet from 60MPH. This distance
!set a record(**) for the shortest stopping distance, so it's safe to say
!that 119 feet is a MINIMUM figure - chances are your car will take
!longer to stop on dry pavement at 60MPH. So, with your following
!distance of 176 feet, that gives you 176-119 = 57 feet in which to
!react, or 0.647 seconds to a) assess the situation, and b) move your foot
!from the gas to the brake. And that's only if you're driving an RX-7; if
!you're in a Corvette with ABS, you'll have 176-126 = 50 feet = 0.568
!seconds to react. And God help you if you're driving a car with poorer
!braking performance than a $30,000 sports car, or you're driving in the
!rain, or if you're a little bit tired, or...
!
!Now you see why a 4 second following rule is a NECESSITY at higher
!speeds.

No I don't.  Unless you think the car you are following is somehow able
to stop INSTANTLY.  Which you yourself said it cannot.  You have to
remember that EVERYONE has that same stopping distance.

The 2-second rule is meant to cover your reaction time, the reaction
time of the guy behind you, and the difference in everybodies braking
distance.

Now, I agree that if you are not on a highway, then something could
come at you from the side, and require you to stop faster.  But then,
that is why speeds are lower on these roads.  On high speed roads
(freeways), I do not expect the car in front to hit a brick wall.
If something is coming at it the other way (could simulate a brick
wall), then I expect I will be able to see it -- which is why I change
lanes when that pick-up/blazer-type/18-wheeler pulls in front of me,
so I can see through whoever IS in front.

-hagger
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: jrd@po.CWRU.Edu (John R. Daker)
Subject: Illegal Acceleration?
Reply-To: jrd@po.CWRU.Edu (John R. Daker)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 16:45:37 GMT


I have wondered about acceleration and the law.  Could I possibly be
breaking some inane law by accelerating up to, but not exceeding, the
posted speed limit very rapidly?  For example, using the full 0 to 45
potential of my car?  

I wonder about this more often now that I have 0-60 times in the 3
second range.  But even in slower modes of transport with 7 sec. times, 
I have wondered what a "protector of humanity" would do.  In my 
younger and more foolish days, I smoked a cop away from a red light
all the way up to the posted limit. Ooooooooooo.

Section 23.67-8 paragraph 17b: Accelerating faster than the federally
			       mandated second derivative of location
			       equation deems suitable for the well
			       being and safety of the helpless
			       citixens of this, the United States of
			       America.

???????
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------>DarkMan-------->
Case Western Reserve University,  Cleveland, Ohio            DoD #650
Anyone know where a mechanical engineer can get a job?
From: leonglaw@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Lawrence Leong)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 14:00:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Consequences of getting a ticket
Organization: HP Singapore
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving

In rec.autos.driving, mark@nwra.com (Mark) writes:

|>I think that the cyclist _is_ required to carry a drivers license.

I think this is ridiculous!  Do cyclists have to pass a driving test?

|
|About 10 years ago a friend was ticketed on his bicycle for running a
|red light. The cop took his driver's license # and wrote up the ticket.
|Well, that is a moving violation and that ticket went on his driving
|record for his insurance Co. to see...
|
|His advice was to not show your license to the cop, or to say "yes,
|officer, you may see my license to identify me, but you may not see my
|driver's license #. Since I am not driving a motor vehicle, a driver's
|license is not relevant." or something like that.
|
|BTW, about the same time my wife got a jaywalking ticket in Seattle.
|The cop asked to see her driver's license, which was from New York (we
|had moved to Seattle a few months before). He said something about "You
|may be able to do that in NEW YORK, but around here..." But I suppose
|he would have written the ticket anyway if she refused to show him her
|license.
|
|-Mark

What happens if the cyclist, or a pedestrian does not have a driving licence?
Off to the gallows? :-)

lawrence
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: met@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Meteorology General)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Deer whistles
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:13:39 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne Dept of Meteorology

In article <kspousta.713721031@qualcom> kspousta@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Kevin Spousta) writes:
>
>Welp, I've come across a solution to the "deer in the road" problem..
>I put a gnarly brush guard/push bar on the front of my truck..  <grin>

You sound like your joking? Here in Aus in a number of places 
outside suburbia there is the chance of hitting roos. In some areas
this is a very real possibility. In such places virtually all the cars
that do any driving on the highways or out of town have great big 
bull bars or roo bars, even on their standard sedan passenger 
vehicle. The bars are up to a couple of inches in diameter, and 
wrap around the front of the car, with usually two bars for a car and
more for a truck. Mountings for halogen driving lights are also 
often welded on - youve got more chance of missing the buggers if you 
can see them.  And if you think a roo doesnt do damage to a car
without the bars then think again; because they get hit front on at
high speed they can leave the car an insurance write off. My dad 
used to have a farm near Deniliquin in NSW, and virtually all the 
cars from round there and to the north and west had them.
  However, I have heard that hitting an emu is worse than hitting
a roo, even if you have a bull/roo bar. Apparently with the emu (its 
a bird like an ostrich) having such long legs, the bonnet of the car 
slides under him and hes thrown straight through the windscreen. The
little begger is then so pissed off that he kicks you to death before
you even stop the car.

Andrew Watkins      awatkins@mullara.met.unimelb.edu.au
From: antoniou@buitc.bu.edu (George Antoniou)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: RADAR JAMMER
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:10:24 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: antoniou@buitc.bu.edu

Someone on the net is selling a Radar JAmmer unit, which was produced by
Cincinati Microwave.  A passport is hooked up to the unit,  it serves as
an activator switch.  ONce the Passport goes off the jammer switches on
and can jam x and k bands.  The radar reader will either shut down or
display a speed set by the jammer.  

I thought jammer are illegal...  
Don't jammer have limited range...?

giorgios
[antoniou@buitc.bu.edu]
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Mike Suter)
Subject: Re: LIDAR - A detector alone is not enough!
Organization: BITS, St. Louis, MO
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:15:51 GMT

>Also, since the LIDAR depends on finding a flat surface on the car, from which
>to bounce the beam, cars with sloping hoods and little flat surface at the
>front should be much harder to capture.  It should be relatively easy to
>eliminate flat surfaces.  Matt black cars would also be more stealthy.

I saw a short segment on the local news for LIDAR, and during that
segment, they were on a bridge, looking down at the *rear* of the
cars, targeting license plates at very short range.

So, you would need a jammer on the front and back.

Mike
-- 
mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Flashing to Pass: An Observation
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:11:53 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <68aJ02Hb1eoT01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, msl30@ccc.amdahl.com 
(Michael Lucash) writes:
> When I used to drive from Ohio to New Jersey I found that the left lane was
> usually the smoothest and in the best condition.  I do drive fast so I 
wasn't
> holding anyone up but if a faster car did approach me, I would move into
> the slow lane for them to pass then return back to the left.

You know I wouldn't mind this kind of attitude -- if all the
other drivers would just recognize that there is a faster car
behind them, and then move over.  But I don't think many of them
realize there is anyone behind them let alone that they are going
any faster than they are.  Of course there are a few who figure they
are going fast enough and therefore have the right to block a faster
car from passing, but they are in the minority I think.

As far as the rules about traffic school, they are set in each county
and in at least one case, (Campbell, CA) by a city.  They diecide when
you can go to traffic school, how often, etc...  Campbell, CA has
created quite a stir by offering a very good traffic school separate 
from the county program which does not even report the ticket to the
DMV.  I believe the county of Santa Clara has brought suit against
them claiming they can't do that.


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com
SHO  GOZE
From: Rainer_Hauer@mindlink.bc.ca (Rainer Hauer)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Electric Cars
Date: 22 Aug 92 04:00:08 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world



Hi Folks,

It seems to me that with all the talk that's taken place recently on different
newsgroups (rec.autos, sci.environment etc..) as well as impending
legislation in California and all the research that's taking place in
car companies etc, that it would be a good idea if a group was created
specifically for this class of vehicle.
Suggested topics could include:
Relative pollution levels between electric and combustion vehicles ( to be
turned into a FAQ?).
Current vehicles available (US and worldwide)
Current News articles
Town planning w.r.t electric vehicles
Legal aspects (e.g. crash resistance, or lack of it!)
etc,etc.

The group could be called something like rec.autos.electric.

How about it then, anybody interested in a group like this ?
===========================================================================
 Send a short response vote to   rainer_hauer@mindlink.bc.ca

               Subject: electric car vote
======================================================================

--
======================================================================
 Contact   rainer_hauer@mindlink.bc.ca
=====================================================================
From: khan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Tailgaters abound!
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:08:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bt9CHH.I4n
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Derek Tearne) writes:

>In article <1992Aug15.053956.14051@sarah.albany.edu> pv9955@albnyvms.bitnet writes:
>>TAILGATING!
>>I forgot what the accepted distance between cars is, that I learned in Driver
>>Education.  I think it is "three seconds" from a fixed point on the side
>>of the road.  

>"Only a fool breaks the TWO second rule".  It rhymes, it fits it's easily
>rememberable.  

Actually, it's only a 2-second rule up to maybe 45MPH, after which you're
better off with a FOUR second following distance. I personally have no
problems with tailgating (in most circumstances) - I try my best to be a
loner out on the road, as far away from other cars as possible (out of sight
in both directions is ideal). I can go as fast as necessary to achieve that 
kind of space cushion, too; not like the "safe" drivers who go 55 and not one
centimeter-per-hour over.


--
Scott Coleman                                                    tmkk@uiuc.edu

Free Advice: It is inadvisable to read Bush's lips at an official banquet.
From: msl30@ccc.amdahl.com (Michael Lucash)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: What is a "jake brake"?
Date: 22 Aug 92 10:22:04 GMT
Reply-To: msl30@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Michael Lucash)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Aug20.224946.29271@nwra.com> mark@nwra.com (Mark) writes:
>I've been puzzled for some time by the signs that say "Use of
>compression brake illegal within XXX city limits." I even asked a
>trucker and he didn't know. So what is a compression brake?
>
I think by compression brake they mean downshifting and letting the engine
compression do the braking.  Truckers almost always brake using this method and regular brakes.  As for a Jake brake, I have no idea...



               Mike
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Subject: Re: Safe Driving
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:23:10 GMT

bpita@ctp.com (Bob Pitas) writes:
>For instance, most engines get their best milage right around their torque
>peak.  Because of this, it's definately possible for a car to get better
>milage at 80 then at 55.  I used to own an '83GT that got 3mpg better
>at 85 than at 65.

I don't think it's quite that simple; additionally you have the
gearing will determine at what speed the car will be going at a
particular rpm, and then you have building wind-resistance that will
chop away at the efficiency.  What I'd expect for most cars is a kind
of "mileage plateau" with one or two peak mileage points -- one at a
low rpm and velocity where wind resistance isn't so much a factor, and
one at higher rpms when the engine is running with enough power to
negate wind effects.

Although it's a statistical sample of one, experience with my own car
seems to agree with the theory.  I've found that my car has a mileage
curve where there are two peak mileage points -- one at about
45mph/35mpg (low rpms in 5th gear) and one at about 70mph/35mpg
(3000rpm, just after the start of the power curve).  There's a dip
between these points that bottoms out in the 55-60mph range where I
get about 2-3mpg less (32mpg).

It should be noted that the 55mph "saves gas" limit is not
particularly efficient on many sports cars, presumably because the
sports cars tend to have higher top-end gearing and better aerodynamic
profiles (and often relatively flat torque curves).  This was seen
during the mileage testing that preceeded the 55mph limit, but was
tossed out since so few people own Porshes et al.  55mph was chosed
because your average car got reasonably good mileage at that speed --
back in the early 70's.

Nowadays I imagine that you'd find peak mileage for your average car
at higher speeds -- the typical car has better aerodynamics and a
small engine with a peaky torque-curve that runs best at relatively
high rpms.

Hence 55 saves lives (a dubious statement IMHO) rather than gas.

Oh well, "this is the world we live in."

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry)
Subject: Re: Consequences of getting a ticket
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:34:14 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <77376@ut-emx.uucp> moonmoon@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (ratna ghosh) writes:
 > Can someone tell me what are the consequences of getting a ticket, apart from
 > the insurance going up?  Also, how long does it take (provided you don't 
 > get a ticket in between) for the insurance to come down to normal again?

I don't know the answer to your question, but one important piece of
information is that (at least in my experience in N.Y. state), the
important date is the "conviction" date, which is often the date on
which you pay the ticket.  It's not the date of the offense.  So just
when I thought a ticket had become insignificant wrt my insurance
premiums, I found that I actually had another three months to go
because I had delayed that long paying the ticket.

 > Is it adviseable to take the defensive driving test, instead of paying off the 
 > ticket, if you get a ticket for the first time?

I'm sure it varies from state to state, but at least in N.Y. I don't
think you can take the course "instead of" paying the ticket.  You pay
the ticket, then you take the course to remove "points" from your
record and to entitle you to some insurance discounts.  

I took the course here, and I'd say it's advisable to take it for its
beneficial effects on your driving, regardless of your situation with
tickets.  Of course, I may just have had a good instructor.  But I'm
convinced that cultivating good "defensive driving" habits is about
the best thing I can do to protect myself and my family on the road.
And the course was a good source of information for me.
--
Andy Lowry, lowry@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7925
IBM Research, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: andy@b30.ingr.com (Andrew Brezinski)
Subject: Re: Flashing to Pass: An Observation
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:53:13 GMT

In article <16p1fcINNohr@agate.berkeley.edu> shyguy@ocf.berkeley.edu (David S. Shy) writes:
>Another observation:  the right lane appears to be more bumpy than
>the left lane.  anyone know why?
>
>david shy
>shyguy@ocf.berkeley.edu

Probably because most of the driving that has occurred on that road has
been in the right lane.  Especially the trucks and other slower traffic.

As multitudes of suspension systems pound on the pavement, small bumps
become bigger bumps.

Andy Brezinski
Intergraph Corporation
Huntsville, AL 35894-0001

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: schludermann@sscvx1.ssc.gov
Subject: book for toyota fi power mods
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:01:47 GMT

    There is a book out there on how to modify toyota fuel injection systems
for performance.  Can any one tell me the name?
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: mpalmer@encore.com (Mike Palmer)
Subject: LIDAR - A detector alone is not enough!
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:05:28 GMT

Having just viewed an article on CNBC about the new LIDAR guns, it would 
appear that a detector alone is useless.  What is needed is a countermeasures
unit that locks on to the laser beam & jams it.  Since we're talking about 
light here the FCC shouldn't have much say in it.  It should be real easy
for a detector to switch on a laser beam & direct it toward the gun to 
'blind' it.  Sounds like a good business oportunity here.

Also, since the LIDAR depends on finding a flat surface on the car, from which
to bounce the beam, cars with sloping hoods and little flat surface at the
front should be much harder to capture.  It should be relatively easy to
eliminate flat surfaces.  Matt black cars would also be more stealthy.

If that doesn't work, you could hook up a couple of laser seeking missiles to
the LIDAR detector, so even if the cop did get you, he wouldn't be around
to call it in!  :)   (Just joking, but it would look good in a movie!)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Subject: Re: LIDAR - A detector alone is not enough!
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:27:45 GMT

mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Mike Suter) writes:
>I saw a short segment on the local news for LIDAR, and during that
>segment, they were on a bridge, looking down at the *rear* of the
>cars, targeting license plates at very short range.

Well, one good thing about that is the cosine error would really knock
the wind out of your apparent speed.

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: What is a "jake brake"?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:01:29 GMT


In article <1992Aug21.023606.11601@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.164527.24423@gtephx.UUCP> romanenkod@gtephx.UUCP (Dan Romanenko) writes:
>>While traveling through Fredonia, Arizona earlier this month, I
>>saw a sign stating "NO JAKE BRAKES ALLOWED IN TOWN". None of
>>us in the vehicle could guess, so... what is a "jake brake"?
>
>you should ask this on rec.autos.tech.
>a jake brake, as i recall, is a compression brake.  it's used on
>diesel engines, which have very high compression ratios (like 20:1).
>thus, the engine compression acts to slow the vehicle.
>there was a big war on rec.autos.tech about how this worked.
>(somebody argued that compressing air was like compressing
>a spring... the energy would be returned on the downstroke of
>the piston.

...unless you decided to open the exhaust value at about TDC, thus
releasing the pressurized air before it can force the piston back down.

NOTE: I'm not saying this is how it really works, since I've never heard
of a jake brake either.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving