Searching \ for '[OT] Is speeding logical?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=speeding+logical
Search entire site for: 'Is speeding logical?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Is speeding logical?'
2010\07\17@151436 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Just made a test with my new car on motorway, and it makes around 47mpg
(imperial) by doing 70mph using the aircon. As I am just about travelling
throughout Europe I have calculated that it is about to spend 450 pounds in
a 2186 miles journey, including EuroTunnel tickets and motorway fees in
Austria and Hungary.  Quite steep compared to the flight ticket...

Anyway, I also started to be curious how much time can I save by driving
fast. So I took the speed limit in each countries, calculated the distance
in each of them and played "what if". What if going on limit, or driving
slower or higher. In a 3 hours journey from Calais to Luxembourg (which is
my first stop) I can only save 30 minutes if I constantly speeding by 20
km/h (compared to driving on the limit). Then from there to Budapest, if I
go really fast on the German motorways (around 200 km/h), then I can save
about 2 hours through the 650 km distance have to make there. That is
something significant, however, even the fact that there is no speed limit
in Germany, I have some doubt if it is possible to maintain that high speed
(someone is always in front of you or there is a construction, or there are
speed limits on bends and bridges etc... so shall we say 1 hour saving would
be realistic?

Now here is the hard part: How much extra fuel my car need for the higher
speed? I could not find any information to that. Is there any good page or
statistics for this kind of information?

Tamas
--
int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s="int main() { char *a,*s,*q;
printf(s=%s%s%s, q=%s%s%s%s,s,q,q,a=%s%s%s%s,q,q,q,a,a,q); }",
q="\"",s,q,q,a="\\",q,q,q,a,a,q); }

2010\07\17@154805 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Here in the USA and Canada, if there is divided (interstate or autobahn)
type highways (70 mph), with some cities (55 mph limit), and running 5-
10 mph above the limit say 60% of the time, including stops for fuel,
restrooms, and meals (quick lunch) (45 minute dinner), I use 55 mph to
calculate the days driving. We try for 500 -600 miles/day, but 700 miles
not unusual, and have done 2000 miles in 3 days more than a few times.
This is with the wife and I changing drivers at most stops. As far a
mileage goes, it depends on the vehicle. Our Cougar that has an
instantaneous and trip computer has a fairly flat MPG curve from 55- 70
mph with and average of 30 mpg there, go above or below and it drops
off, say 5 mpg for 15 mph faster or slower. The cougar has a good
aerodynamic shape which helps keep the speeds economical. And as I said
earlier, it has enough power to stay in overdrive. The lower speeds it
is more in direct drive and the MPG drops off. Not what the typical
driver would expect. I am not a light footed driver!

Get one of Vitaliy's scanners, one of the software items is a simulated
dashboard, and you can get instantaneous and historical over several
periods of time MPG. :)

On 7/17/2010 3:14 PM, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\07\17@160156 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
What I should have said earlier, sometimes it's the destination that
decides the priority of speed. For us, generally 10 -11 hours of driving
a day is max. We don't generally drive distance at night. It depends on
sightseeing or other things along the way. Usually we try to do other
things while we are in an area, and the open times for those items
sometimes prioritizes the schedule. Most of the time we like to get
there as quick as possible. On a multiday trip. saving a night's lodging
and a day's food, could easily be more than the extra fuel.

On 7/17/2010 3:14 PM, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\07\17@163919 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> Now here is the hard part: How much extra fuel my car need for the higher
> speed? I could not find any information to that. Is there any good page or
> statistics for this kind of information?
>

I think this is an interesting question. We know that wind force increases
with the square of the speed, so, if you double your speed, the force is
four times as much. Traveling over the same distance, the energy required
(force times distance) is four times a much. So, it appears miles per
gallon gets considerably worse as speed increases. However, going in the
other direction, miles per gallon goes to zero when speed is zero. So,
somewhere in there is a maximum miles per gallon. I wonder where it would
be for various vehicle designs.

Harold



--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2010\07\17@164723 by RussellMc

face picon face
> I think this is an interesting question. We know that wind force increases
> with the square of the speed, so, if you double your speed, the force is
> four times as much. Traveling over the same distance, the energy required
> (force times distance) is four times a much. So, it appears miles per
> gallon gets considerably worse as speed increases.

Energy per time aka power is thus proportional to the cube of speed,
all else being equal.
Carl's Cougar shows that all else isn't equal :-).

Even if it were, reduced trip time at increased speed makes Harold's
Harol'd square law correct for absolute energy trequired and thus fuel
required.


               Russell

2010\07\17@164808 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Hi Tamas,

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Tamas Rudnai <spam_OUTtamas.rudnaiTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> Now here is the hard part: How much extra fuel my car need for the higher
> speed? I could not find any information to that. Is there any good page or
> statistics for this kind of information?

Warning - this is all based on a rather thin grasp of basic physics
with little actual experience or measurement in car fuel consumption
:)

The power required from the engine is the sum of rolling resistance,
air drag, hill-climbing, internal friction, and car accessory power.

Rolling resistance comes from tire deformation and adhesion to the
road surface - the power required to overcome it varies linearly with
speed

Subsonic air drag force varies nearly as the square of speed, so the
power loss varies as the cube of speed.

Internal friction is a combination of constant-force (Coulombic) and
viscous friction, so it varies quadratically with a strong linear
term.

Car accessory power should be a fairly constant load.

On top of this, the engine's and transmission efficiency will depend on the RPM.

It is my understanding that air drag is by far the dominant factor at
high speed (say >80 km/h) due to the cubic dependence on speed.
Assuming that your transmission manages to keep a fairly constant
engine/transmission efficiency in the 80 to 120 km/h range, then it
would seem that your car would take considerably more power to
maintain speed as speed is increased, roughly fuel consumption per
time being proportional to speed cubed.

If your car gets 30 miles per gallon (13 km per liter) at 80 km/hour,
that is 6.2 liters per hour. I would expect that at 120 km/h, it would
require 21 liters per hour, which would be 5.7 km/liter or 13 miles
per gallon.

This seems too extreme, since most people (in the US anyway) drive at
around 70 miles per hour (113 km/h) and still manage to get 25 miles
per gallon or so out of a car rated at 30 miles per gallon (presumably
at 55 or 60 miles per hour).

So, it looks like the lower order terms are still significant at these
slightly higher speeds. Also the engine may be getting more efficient
as you go from 80 to 120 km/h.

Sean


>
> Tamas
> --
> int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s="int main() { char *a,*s,*q;
> printf(s=%s%s%s, q=%s%s%s%s,s,q,q,a=%s%s%s%s,q,q,q,a,a,q); }",
> q="\"",s,q,q,a="\\",q,q,q,a,a,q); }
> -

2010\07\17@165217 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
This is an interesting graph - too bad they didn't extend it to
slightly higher speeds (and also too bad that it isn't more recent):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuel_economy_vs_speed_1997.png


On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:46 PM, RussellMc <.....apptechnzKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2010\07\17@172615 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I have some doubt if it is possible to maintain that high speed

200 km average? No way. Theoretically there is no limit, but IIRC you
are in a very bad position when you drive that fast an get involved in a
accident. As a consequence almost everyone drives below 180. And those
everyones are bound to be on the same lane as you. And when the Germans
introduce a speed limit due to works etc. they limit seriously, like 80.

> Now here is the hard part: How much extra fuel my car need for the higher
> speed? I could not find any information to that. Is there any good page or
> statistics for this kind of information?

The next question would be: given the amount of time it takes to refuel,
 at what speed does the extra refuel time cancel out the gain due to
the speed?

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\07\17@173700 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
The chart concurs with what I said, but we know little about those
vehicles, power/weight, gearing (Overdrive, gear ratios, power/torque
curves, frontal area, drag coefficients, driving style, wind
speed/direction), and the list could go on and on. The
instantaneous/trip MPG is one of the most referred to gauge on the
vehicle. On cruise at say 60 mph,fairly level road, You can see any
where between 20 - 50 MPG with an average of 30 MPG within a half mile
as the road slope is up and down slightly, and this is without shifting
out of OD or the converter clutch disengaging. The readout is also very
good for assessing engine conditions. We travel frequently Cleveland to
Atlanta 650 miles. Fuel mileage was low by 20% and then the last tankful
was back to normal, but returned a week later. Took some months to find
the problem. One of the differential pressure sensors had developed a
drop of water in a small (pea sized) foam filter that was obstructing
the flow. It took many months for the problem to become bad enough to
set the check engine light and a PID code. The sensor was just slow to
provide the correct pressure reading. The computer understood different
operating conditions and the fuel trim was set wrong.

{Quote hidden}

2010\07\18@045723 by Peter

picon face
Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnai <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Just made a test with my new car on motorway, and it makes around 47mpg
> (imperial) by doing 70mph using the aircon. As I am just about travelling
> throughout Europe I have calculated that it is about to spend 450 pounds in
> a 2186 miles journey, including EuroTunnel tickets and motorway fees in
> Austria and Hungary.  Quite steep compared to the flight ticket...

Fuel taxation is the main device which sets fuel prices in the EU. I do not know
if it is designed so or not but the price point makes it clear that traveling
cross country alone in a car is not worth while. Starting from two persons per
car and up it may break even with air fares or even train fares.

-- Peter


2010\07\18@100100 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> Now here is the hard part: How much extra fuel my car need for the
> higher speed? I could not find any information to that. Is there any
> good page or statistics for this kind of information?

At the speeds you are talking about, most of the power goes into overcoming
air drag.  That goes up with the cube of the speed, so energy/distance goes
up with the square of the speed.  That's probably the place to start is you
have no other information.

In reality, it's probably worse than that because this assumes the same
efficiency from the engine at all the speeds.  Most likely, your drivetrain
was optimized for best engine efficiency near the operating points used to
determine fuel economy, which would be below the speeds you are talking
about.  So you have the square of the air speed, plus the fact that the
drivetrain is less efficient at your high speeds.

Just for a quick back of the envelope check, let's compare 55 and 80
miles/hour.  (80/55)^2 = 2.1, which is how much more energy per distance it
will take just to move your car thru the air.  Note that the engine has to
put out (80/55)^3 = 3.1 times more power due to air resistance.  In other
words, this effect is significant, and you will likely get a lot less milage
(1/2 being a lot) at the high speeds you described.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\07\18@105920 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> Fuel taxation is the main device which sets fuel prices in the EU. I do
> not know
> if it is designed so or not but the price point makes it clear that
> traveling
> cross country alone in a car is not worth while. Starting from two persons
> per
> car and up it may break even with air fares or even train fares.
>
> -- Peter
>

There's a lot of interesting info at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation. A few
numbers from there (passenger miles per US gallon):

Boeng 7447-400: 91
walking: 228.1
bicycle: 630
cruise ship: 13.9
freight train: 457 ton-miles per gallon of diesel fuel
full commuter bus: 231
commuter bus with 9 passengers: 54 (could drop to half with many stops)

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2010\07\18@121611 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 05:09 PM 7/17/2010, you wrote:

> > Now here is the hard part: How much extra fuel my car need for the higher
> > speed? I could not find any information to that. Is there any good page or
> > statistics for this kind of information?
> >
>
>I think this is an interesting question. We know that wind force increases
>with the square of the speed, so, if you double your speed, the force is
>four times as much. Traveling over the same distance, the energy required
>(force times distance) is four times a much. So, it appears miles per
>gallon gets considerably worse as speed increases. However, going in the
>other direction, miles per gallon goes to zero when speed is zero. So,
>somewhere in there is a maximum miles per gallon. I wonder where it would
>be for various vehicle designs.
>
>Harold

Some older vehicles:-

http://wapedia.mobi/en/File:Fuel_economy_vs_speed_1997.png

The Celica curve is interesting.. it has several strong maximas-- the global
maxima at about 25mph (40km/h) and two local maximas at 48mph(77km/h)
and 60mph (96km/h).
Could be related to discrete gear ratios in the drive train.

Of course if you consider value of time at anything reasonable, with North
American fuel prices anyway..

500 miles at 75mph is 6.67 hours
500 miles at 55mph is 9.10 hours

So you'd save 2.43 hours by going at the higher speed.

Assuming a $4 per gallon fuel price (current prices are less,
typically much less,
than that in every state of the US including Hawai'i and major cities
in Alaska),
fuel consumption for (say) the Geo Prism would be $69 in the first case,
and $53 in the second case, so you're saving $16. in fuel. If your time
is worth more than $6.50 per hour total for ALL the persons in the
car not driving
vs. driving, you're better off going as fast as 75mph (assuming that
won't result
in delays and extra costs due to speeding tickets). Lower speeds
could also result
in tickets if you're going too far below the speed limit (some places even have
posted minimum speeds). At current gas prices in, say, the US Midwest
of $2.68 per
gallon (0.55 EUR/liter), the time would have to be worth less than
$4.35 (EUR 3.3) per hour.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

Gas prices in Europe tend to be 2-3x as much, of course, and it's not hard to
pay 30 or 50 Euros in tolls (Mont Blanc tunnel, Autoroute from Paris
to Marsaille).

This site is pretty useful- it even lists speed camera locations.
http://www.viamichelin.com

It says Paris to Sofia Bulgaria in 20:50 for a cost of about 300
Euros, of which
200 is gasoline.

>Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speffspamKILLspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com



2010\07\18@132015 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:57:09 +0000 (UTC), "Peter" said:

> Fuel taxation is the main device which sets fuel prices in the EU.

But that does not effect the fuel economy of his car, it's just a
comment about fuel prices. I never hear people rejoicing about low
prices where they occur. You can get oil for free if you scoop it off
the water of the Gulf of Mexico right now :)

The question was related to the speed of the automobile versus its fuel
economy.

But since I am now contributing to this thread, I will share my
experiments in fuel economy.

A few years ago I tested steady-speed fuel economy in two cars, a 1997
GEO Metro 1.0 L 5 speed manual and a 1998 Ford Mustang 4.6 L 4 speed
automatic.

Both vehicles got their best mileage when the engine was around 2000 RPM
in top gear. The Ford had a higher final gear ratio so that resulted in
it getting it's best mileage at a higher speed, though both were below
normal highway speed(40 mph for the GEO, 50 mph for the Ford). And the
Ford got worse mileage overall, although it was about the same
proportionally by weight. I think the Ford had a more aerodynamic
design.

For non-steady-speed, the best way to get good fuel mileage can be
irritating to the people you share the road with, as it should include
"pulse and glide" techniques.

But basically, the aerodynamics of a vehicle have a lot to do with fuel
economy. Maybe we should have automated roads and cars with a
standardized shape so we can have them all "draft" in a long line. Oh,
wait, we have those already, they are called "trains" and they are
successful in most civilized countries except the United States, where
gasoline is practically free. See, Peter, I brought it full circle. So
if you want cheap gasoline, live here in the U.S. and good luck finding
an automobile that gets good mileage, evidently "we don't want them" and
the car manufacturers have to be pressured by fleet mileage regulations
to sell any at all.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class

2010\07\18@154102 by Brooke Clarke

flavicon
face
Hi:

Gasoline engines have a "throttle" which at anything less than full
throttle is choking off the input of air, hence manifold vacuum.  So
when the your foot is off the throttle there's a lot of vacuum and the
engine is running very inefficiently.  So there's a range of vehicle
speeds where there's a sweep spot giving the best efficiency.   This is
not the case for diesel engines where there is not throttle and the
input manifold runs at atmospheric pressure or more commonly at a boost
pressure.
For the equations to calculate the 1/4 mile elapsed time and speed see:
http://www.prc68.com/I/CSX3282.shtml#ET

--
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
http://www.PRC68.com


2010\07\18@160447 by MCH

flavicon
face
Hmmm... last I checked walking and
riding a bicycle did not use any gallons.

Joe M.

Harold Hallikainen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\07\18@161442 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> Hmmm... last I checked walking and
> riding a bicycle did not use any gallons.
>
> Joe M.

True... It's a measure of energy usage converted to miles per gallon for
ease of comparison.

Harold


{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\07\18@192817 by RussellMc

face picon face
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation. A few
> numbers from there (passenger miles per US gallon):
>
> Boeng 7447-400: 91
> walking: 228.1
> bicycle: 630
> cruise ship: 13.9
> freight train: 457 ton-miles per gallon of diesel fuel
> full commuter bus: 231
> commuter bus with 9 passengers: 54 (could drop to half with many stops)

They are majoring on people there - so it misses making the point tht
barges and freighters are probably the most efficient transport method
going for freight - better even than rail.

I'd missed the point before now which Bob made that one reason rail is
so efficient is the "drafting effect" caused by each wagon shielding
the next from air drag.

Works for motorcycles too :-). Tuck a small bike in behind a large
truck and you can get speeds or mpg far superior to the usual. Long
ago I used to travel often on a small motorcycle between two cities
about 70 mies apart. "Slip streaming" behind large trucks was great
fun - albeit hard on the nerves due to the very low separations
needed. As you come in under about a metre or so you can ease right
back on the throttle. It was not possible to do this over large
distances as small variations in speed would drop you out of the
'shield' and as you were on low throttle you'd drop back very rapidly
until getting back in-sync.


                     Russell

2010\07\18@201953 by John Gardner

picon face
> Gasoline engines have a "throttle" which at anything less than full
throttle is choking off the input of air, hence manifold vacuum.  So
when the your foot is off the throttle there's a lot of vacuum and the
engine is running very inefficiently

Hmm. Spark-ignition engines & diesels both have to do work to pump
air in, and exhaust out.

Restricting the intake reduces volumetric efficiency, but has little effect
on overall efficiency - IC engines do more work on their intake charge
as manifold vacuum drops, not less.

With IC engines diminishing returns sets in around 30% overall efficiency.
No matter how much engineering you do you're not going to get much better,
in anything that'll fit in a car. Hybrids add a few per cent to to
that, at a price,
and with considerable added complexity. And, unless you slow down, perish
the thought, you probably won't see much benefit even then.

Jack

2010\07\18@205928 by ivp

face picon face
> I'd missed the point before now which Bob made that one reason rail
> is so efficient is the "drafting effect" caused by each wagon shielding
> the next from air drag.

Fuel consumption per person, train vs car, is/was not always straight-
forward

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002197.html

I heard the Lancaster study on a repeat of Top Gear last week. Admitedly
the study is old (2004), about the same vintage as the Top Gear I think,
and a lot of improvement has been made re efficiencies since then

You might recall the test conducted by Jeremy Clarkson to travel from
London to Edinburgh and back (800 mile /  1300 km) on one tank of
diesel by driving an Audi A8 (4 litre V8 turbo) sensibly and conservatively

Joe

*
*
**********
Quality PIC programmers
http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.htm

2010\07\19@001203 by RussellMc

face picon face
> I heard the Lancaster study on a repeat of Top Gear last week.

I was reading about Lancaster mpg just 2 days ago* :-).
Those used rather larger engines.
AFAIR they said that if you were careful and clever you could achieve 1 mpg.
I guess that's about 10 ton-mile/gallon with a Big Boy  (or was that
Grans Slam?) installed - but with the bomb doors off (as I think was
required) you probably get fewer mpg.

I was looking for "Bristol Hercules" engine photos. A friend recently
photographed a 14 cylinder radial BH engine (this one less a few of
its cylinders) sitting outside a club in Kimbe, New Britain, PNG. Used
in Lancaster amongst many other craft. Sleeve valve, ... .


        Russell

2010\07\19@002937 by John Gardner

picon face
Lancs had sleeve-valve engines?

Live & learn...

Thanks, Jack

2010\07\19@004239 by RussellMc

face picon face
> Lancs had sleeve-valve engines?
> Live & learn...

The photos started a too long and too interesting search.
I waded through many many many rotary photos before finding what it was.
I wondered at the very lean block lines with no signs of push rod
tunnels etc. I wondered if it was 2 stroke !!!.
Sleeve valve never occurred to me.

The classic Lancaster Engine is the Rolls Royce Merlin, but according
to what I read they also used the Bristol Hercules engines, which are
sleeve valve.
Makes for a very tidy exterior fwiw.

Warning black-hole - Mr Gargoyle has more photos than you can follow
the links from in a day :-)

   http://bit.ly/BristolHercules


                      Russell

2010\07\19@005638 by John Gardner

picon face
> The classic Lancaster Engine is the Rolls Royce Merlin..

That's what I thought...

> Warning black-hole...

Not a problem. Thanks for the heads-up.

Jack

2010\07\19@010319 by John Gardner

picon face
Clearly for big ( = low RPM ) normally-aspirated mills you can pull it off.

I'll be, ah, durned...

Jack

2010\07\19@034303 by RussellMc

face picon face
The push rod style of Radial have "other uses" too.
You know you want one!

                 http://bit.ly/Radial001

A degree of 'torque steer' might be anticipated.
Something like this would really fly! (groan)



       R

2010\07\19@103159 by John Gardner

picon face
Tatra (Czech) once made radial-engine automobiles & trucks,
though their wiki does'nt mention it specifically.

2010\07\19@122440 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Thanks guys for the interesting info.

I understood the drag force, that you need square times more power for
higher speed, however, what I was not sure if you need four times as much
fuel for going double speed? This is not my previous experience as I can't
remember that much exceeding fuel requirements when was driving faster in
the past. In my head this is because of the power curve -- so the faster the
engine spins the higher the horse power it gives -- at least in a certain
revs range. So theoretically in each car there is a low speed where it eats
more fuel than at higher speed. Also that if going faster maybe it is less
prone to slow down on hills? Like I remember my ex Daewoo Nexia 10 years ago
(which was an Opel / Vauxhall really), if I drove at 130km/h, on some hill
it slowed down to 100km/h by the top, while going by 140km/h on the same
road and it maintained the same speed till the end.

This is from the Wikipedia:

"Fuel economy at steady speeds with selected vehicles was studied in 2010.
The most recent study[17] <#cite_note-ornl-16> indicates greater fuel
efficiency at higher speeds than earlier studies; for example, some vehicles
achieve better mileage at 65 than at 45 mph (72 rather than 105
km/h),[<#cite_note-ornl-16>
17 <#cite_note-ornl-16>] <#cite_note-ornl-16>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles


I was just hoping to read some case studies, maybe from a car race team or a
road safety organisation?

Tamas


On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM, John Gardner <.....goflo3KILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:

> Tatra (Czech) once made radial-engine automobiles & trucks,
> though their wiki does'nt mention it specifically.
> -

2010\07\19@123308 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Wouter van Ooijen <EraseMEwouterspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTvoti.nl> wrote:

> The next question would be: given the amount of time it takes to refuel,
>
at what speed does the extra refuel time cancel out the gain due to
> the speed?
>

Thanks, I have not thought about that but actually this is a good question.
It is more like 2 or 3 times pit-boxing strategy in F1. First we would need
to know the extra fuel requirements for the higher speed and then the the
time need to spend in a petrol station to stop, to refill, to pay etc. Would
be interesting to see this as well.

Tamas



>
> --
>
> Wouter van Ooijen
>
> -- -------------------------------------------
> Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
> consultancy, development, PICmicro products
> docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
>
> -

2010\07\19@124328 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 19/7/2010 13:24, Tamas Rudnai escreveu:
> Thanks guys for the interesting info.
>
> I understood the drag force, that you need square times more power for
> higher speed, however, what I was not sure if you need four times as much
> fuel for going double speed? This is not my previous experience as I can't
> remember that much exceeding fuel requirements when was driving faster in
> the past. In my head this is because of the power curve -- so the faster the

The drag follows the square law only after a certain speed, when the air
flow around the car changes from laminar to turbulent, so you must
subtract this "minimum" before doing the calculations (I think).
Also, as you are running faster you will take less time spending the
higher amount of fuel per km.

Isaac

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/

2010\07\19@124602 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
That's what I was saying, from personal experience, some vehicles get
better mileage at higher speeds.

> This is from the Wikipedia:
>
> "Fuel economy at steady speeds with selected vehicles was studied in 2010.
> The most recent study[17]<#cite_note-ornl-16>  indicates greater fuel
> efficiency at higher speeds than earlier studies; for example, some vehicles
> achieve better mileage at 65 than at 45 mph (72 rather than 105
> km/h),[<#cite_note-ornl-16>
> 17<#cite_note-ornl-16>]<#cite_note-ornl-16>"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles
>

2010\07\19@125607 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Say 600 miles @50 mph = 12 hours, @ 60 mph = 10 hours. Most cars will go
at least 300 miles per tankful, so that's 2 fuel stops. Fuel only stop
is going to take maybe 10 - 15 minutes.  600 miles @ 25 mpg = 24
gallons, @30 mpg = 20 gallons. If in fact the higher speed is the less
mileage, then for a 10 gallon fill-up, one more stop (and that wouldn't
be every day) the elapsed time would still be 1:45 less. :)

With a GPS that has total trip elapsed or time of arrival data, one can
see very quickly how the predicted time of arrival changes for different
speeds.

On 7/19/2010 12:33 PM, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> --

2010\07\19@130106 by Peter

picon face
Bob Blick <bobblick <at> ftml.net> writes:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:57:09 +0000 (UTC), "Peter" said:
> > Fuel taxation is the main device which sets fuel prices in the EU.
>
> The question was related to the speed of the automobile versus its fuel
> economy.

True, but there is little point in talking about efficiency when the powers
that be (damned) set the prices and limits such that no amount of effiecience
can improve matters without paying more for fines. This is like size
optimizing a PIC program that will go into a 2k device. Yes, the code will be
smaller, so what? Optimization in a "stepped" environment implies aiming as
close to the chosen step as possible and on the desired side of it.

>From the efficiency point of view there is the one gallon challenge race which
shows clearly what kinds of speeds and technologies lead:

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/08/24/
one-gallon-challenge-alt-fuel-race-cars-get-up-to-164-mpge/

(paste on one line)

For everyday commercial vehicles I assume that comparative diagrams as the one
linked in this thread and commented by several should be mandatory eventually
in published vehicle technical data. That Toyota graph is pretty hard to
explain in any case. I'm sure that it makes some sense to maximize gas mileage
for two speed ranges, one correponding to slow city traffic and one for long
distance driving.

Several concept cars which were road ready and even raced successfully have
advertised stellar gas mileages in the past. All were highly aerodynamic, had
composite bodies (were very light) and relatively small engines. Happy
coincidence?

Anyway modern on-the-road efficiency might have to resort to dirty tricks such
as optimizing the gas mileage for the (known) speed limit (just under it), for
each country (!) the car is shipped to (!!) creating a deliberate hump in the
gas mileage graph. I'm not sure if the Toyota design was such by design or by
accident. Given the good name their engineering has (?) it might have been the
former. The speed where the gas mileage showed that enormous hump at low speed
was close to what one uses to drive in town. I guess adding that YMMV is very
appropriate here.

-- Peter


2010\07\19@130230 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> I understood the drag force, that you need square times more power for
> higher speed,

No.  Power goes with the cube of the speed.  The drag force goes with the
square of the speed.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\07\19@212321 by BOB

picon face
I see all kinds of number flying around hear but has any one factored in
the cost of a speeding ticket or accident.

I know it is always that other driver who does a lane change while
talking on the cell phone, smoking and drinking coffee while driving
that does a lane change just when you enter their blind spot while passing.

Just out of curiosity what happens to speeder in other parts of the world?

Bob

Carl Denk wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\07\19@215107 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Both the wife (first one in 30 years) 70/50  mph, $120, and self (first
one in 8 years) 50/35, $135  Wife was blending with merging traffic with
an exit near 2 lanes over on freeway, I missed a speed limit change sign
when I passed a slow truck (the sign was hidden by the truck) with a
short passing zone on a country highway.

On 7/19/2010 9:23 PM, BOB wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\07\19@223439 by John Gardner

picon face
You're pulling your weight, Carl. Without traffic fines most
municipalities would collapse.

I just paid a $485 fine for not wearing a helmet while riding
my bicycle - The law explicitly says this applies to riders
under 18. I did'nt make the court date because I got hit a
few days later by a young woman who ran a red light...

Being illegally in the country, she was'nt cited. (We're a
"Sanctuary" city. No money in it for the city, either. A
coincidence, no doubt.

6 months later, when I got loose of the medics, I discovered
that a warrant for my arrest had been issued, and there is no
mechanism for deflecting the course of Justice that does'nt
involve hiring a lawyer - About 5X the fine, for openers...

Blind Justice my patootie - The buggers know exactly what
they're doing  :)

I've gotten a few tickets over the years - Beat 'em all, till this one.

She did take her foot off the gas after hitting me, otherwise I
would'nt be here. Pretty good-looking too. Could've been worse.

Jack

On 7/19/10, Carl Denk <@spam@cdenkKILLspamspamwindstream.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\07\20@000534 by RussellMc

face picon face
> I see all kinds of number flying around hear but has any one factored in
> the cost of a speeding ticket or accident.

Spehro said:

If your time  is worth more than $6.50 per hour total for
ALL the persons in the car not driving vs. driving, you're better
off going as fast as 75mph (assuming that won't result
in delays and extra costs due to speeding tickets).
Lower speeds could also result in tickets if you're going too
far below the speed limit (some places even have
posted minimum speeds). At current gas prices in, say, the
US Midwest of $2.68 per gallon (0.55 EUR/liter), the time
would have to be worth less than $4.35 (EUR 3.3) per hour.


       R

2010\07\20@084011 by Justin Richards

face picon face
For what it is worth,

Perth, Western Australia AU$1.36/liter for Diesel engine (aka "high
speed oil engine" I  recently discovered)

or US$4.32/gallon hmmmm.

> US Midwest of $2.68 per gallon (0.55 EUR/liter), the time
>  would have to be worth less than $4.35 (EUR 3.3) per hour.
>

2010\07\20@084838 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
For the higher speeds, and possibility of getting a ticket, the cost of
that ticket needs to be spread over a period of time, i.e. for the wife,
30 years worth of driving, for me 8 years. And in that time we have both
drove more than a few times at higher speeds. In our semi-rural area,
the police tolerate 9 mph over the limit of 55 mph, and nearly everyone
uses that 64 mph as a standard speed. But, most of the small cities have
literally 3 miles of highway, and a police car patrolling at all times.
Where the sign is 35 mph, that's what you better be doing. In Georgia,
on I-75, I was on cruise at 83 mph (by the GPS), a state patrol came by
me at probably 90, and  never even looked over at me.

And yes in the USA, nearly all freeways, toll roads, and interstate
highways have a 40 mph minimum speed. Below that speed, your 4 way
warning flashers must be on. Trucks that are doing their best and unable
to maintain the minimum always turn their 4 ways on.

On 7/20/2010 12:05 AM, RussellMc wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\07\20@100332 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Please note, that here in the UK there are millions of speed cameras on the
road, and now they are measuring the average speed instead of
the instantaneous on some hot spots. The cameras are digital and they are
sending you the fine automatically (it may arrive to your door before you
got home :-). Also in France they are measuring the average on the toll
gates -- if you were speeding, then they might call the police for a
friendly talk. This makes speeding really difficult -- maybe if you have a
James Bond car and you can change the number plate between the traps :-)

Tamas


On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Carl Denk <KILLspamcdenkKILLspamspamwindstream.net> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\07\20@153009 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: For what it is worth,
::
:: Perth, Western Australia AU$1.36/liter for Diesel engine

In Brisbane (southish) it is AU$1.29.9/ltr why they can't say $1.30 I'll
never know - (people are so gullible). I recall it was much cheaper in NZ,
but I understand the government consider all diesel cars to be trucks and
so road tax them more highly.

When I went back to the UK in 2008, I was surprised to find that diesel was
now dearer than petrol, that never used to be the case, no matter what
colour was being purchased. (Diesel for farm use was coloured bright pink,
as it wasn't taxed at the same rate as DERV for road vehicles).

Colin
--
cdb, RemoveMEcolinTakeThisOuTspambtech-online.co.uk on 21/07/2010

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359

" Be who you are and say what you feel...
Because those that matter... don't mind...
And those that mind... don't matter."






2010\07\20@160322 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 05:29:59 +1000, "cdb" said:

> colour was being purchased. (Diesel for farm use was coloured bright
> pink,

I always thought it was a male/female thing, that's why I bought the
blue :)

My wife's car has pink antifreeze...

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
                         or over the web

2010\07\20@170513 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Tamas Rudnai <spamBeGonetamas.rudnaispamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:
> Please note, that here in the UK there are millions of speed cameras on the
> road, and now they are measuring the average speed instead of
> the instantaneous on some hot spots. The cameras are digital and they are
> sending you the fine automatically (it may arrive to your door before you
> got home :-).

I'm sorry, but I have to correct you on that wild exaggeration.
According to www.speedcamerasuk.com/speed-camera-faqs.htm
(first hit on google) there are only 6000 - no date on that, but it's
about the figure I expected and the numbers haven't been changing that
fast recently. Certainly nowhere near a million. Also only a small
proportion of those are average speed cameras - the only ones I'm
aware of are in motorway roadworks 50 limits (somewhere it seems
reasonable not to speed when they're working - the problem being that
the majority of the time I drive through such limits there is nobody
working!) The others aren't generally automatic - certainly not the
mobile ones, which I'd suggest are the most dangerous, as they've
nabbed you as soon as you see them, so no chance to slow down - have
been caught twice that way!

Chris

2010\07\20@180056 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Here in Ohio, the "Off The Road" diesel fuel for my tractor is bright
red color, I believe same use gasoline is also the same color. The
significance is the fuel is much less costly since there is no road use
tax paid on it. The fine is very high for using it in a road vehicle.
Typically a farmer or contractor has tanks for both off and on the road.
The tank (in my case a 55 gallon drum) must be labeled accordingly.

On 7/20/2010 3:29 PM, cdb wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\07\21@183504 by BOB

picon face
Carl Denk wrote:
> Here in Ohio, the "Off The Road" diesel fuel for my tractor is bright
> red color, I believe same use gasoline is also the same color. The
> significance is the fuel is much less costly since there is no road use
> tax paid on it. The fine is very high for using it in a road vehicle.
> Typically a farmer or contractor has tanks for both off and on the road.
> The tank (in my case a 55 gallon drum) must be labeled accordingly.
>
>  
Here in Wisconsin the have non road use that does not have road use TAX
added for diesel and gasoline fuels.  I know that some light aircraft
engines are able to use auto fuel. also marine usage and I have heard
construction equipment are also eligible to use it.  At one time they
were adding an additive that would color the exhaust pipe a bright red
color.  This would indicate if the no tax fuel was used for highway use.

Bob

2010\07\21@185701 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
I think that aviation gasoline is usually colored light blue -
probably to make sure you don't get it mixed up with jet fuel at
airports which have both.

Sean


On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:34 PM, BOB <RemoveMEBOBSCNCspamTakeThisOuTcharter.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2010\07\21@185806 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
On the tractor, the exhaust pipe is normal soot diesel color, I don't
notice any difference other than the liquid red color. I don't know if
it's still in effect, but you used to apply to Ohio for refund of road
taxes for off road use. I don't know what the situation is for boats.
The aircraft grade gasoline (not the 87 octane auto fuel) is 100 LL (100
octane low lead). It is common for the car racers to use it. It's color
is light blue. Near here, at  Summit Racing's Norwalk dragstrip, the
adjacent Huron County airport self serve 100LL pump does a good business
to people with 5 gallon jerry cans.

On 7/21/2010 6:34 PM, BOB wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\07\21@191251 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:34:50 -0500, "BOB" said:

> At one time they
> were adding an additive that would color the exhaust pipe a bright red
> color.  This would indicate if the no tax fuel was used for highway use.

I hope it also had a pleasant cherry fragrance:

http://www.manhattanoil.com/fuel-fragrances.php

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service

2010\07\21@192657 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bob Blick" <bobblickEraseMEspam.....ftml.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:12 AM
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <EraseMEpiclistspammit.edu>
Subject: Re: [OT] Is speeding logical?

{Quote hidden}

Cool, what will they think of next... :-)

Not a bad idea I suppose if they work though.

2010\07\21@212123 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Yes, that is the reason, different grades/type of fuel are different
colors, and part of the proper pre-flight inspection is before first
flight of the day, or after refueling, to drain a small amount of fuel
into a transparent cup, and check the color, presence of debris or
water. It is not that uncommon (I hear of one maybe once a year) for a
plane to get fueled with Jet-A instead of gasoline. And then there have
been instances where the tank truck delivering either loaded the wrong
product, or unloaded into the wrong tank. And then there are the issues
when the long distance pipeline changes product with intermixing at the
changeover. I always personally fueled our plane. Mainly so if the paint
got scratched, but also, I would smell the fumes from the product, and
verify the labels on the nozzle.

On 7/21/2010 6:57 PM, Sean Breheny wrote:
> I think that aviation gasoline is usually colored light blue -
> probably to make sure you don't get it mixed up with jet fuel at
> airports which have both.
>
> Sean
>

2010\07\21@212319 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
With many smaller diesels being fueled with the waste cooking oil, we
have many times had the odor of fried fish or beef from vehicle ahead.

On 7/21/2010 7:12 PM, Bob Blick wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\07\21@230023 by RussellMc

face picon face
>  ... part of the proper pre-flight inspection is before first
> flight of the day, or after refueling, to drain a small amount of fuel
> into a transparent cup, and check the color, presence of debris or
> water.

I saw a light aircraft with 4 people aboard climb off a seaside
airstrip over trees and then start behaving "very unusually". Turned
out to have had engine trouble due to water in fuel. Banked hard to
try to return to strip but didn't have enough height and instead
descended into the harbour beyond. Injuries but nobody killed.

Verdict was water in the fuel due AFAIR to leakage into a storage drum
from an improperly sealed lid. Would be interesting to know how much
checking was done, what level of checking would have saved him and how
the fuel drum leakage was able to happen at all.

Pauanui rule 4.4 probably is based on that incident - " ... turn early
after takeoff and WEAR life preservers ..."
( http://bit.ly/PauanuiAirstrip )


     Russell

2010\07\22@084630 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Pilot's sole responsibility, for safety of flight. Should have checked
fuel by draining small quantity. And yes the timing for that fuel to
arrive at the engine is just off the end of the runway. The storage tank
should be checked regularly. At our airport, one of the first mandatory
tasks for the line crew (they move, fuel aircraft) was to drain fuel
from the bottom of each truck tanker and check color, fuel, sediment,
water, etc. The test was logged, and the used to be wasted. If clean it
would be used to fuel airport equipment. Jet-A is close to diesel, and
gasoline was fine in the lawnmower. Back to the flight. Pilots are
trained, engine failure on take-off, don't try to turn around unless it
is a very long runway and you started on the end, but chose a landing
area ahead. Many twin engine planes will not climb or maintain altitude
on one engine, you just go down slower. :(  Our airplane made good water
landings, and I always kept an eye for smooth water, as compared to the
steep wooded hills of the Eastern USA mountains.

On 7/21/2010 10:59 PM, RussellMc wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\07\22@085716 by BOB

picon face
Sean Breheny wrote:
> I think that aviation gasoline is usually colored light blue -
> probably to make sure you don't get it mixed up with jet fuel at
> airports which have both.
>
> Sean
>
>  
Aircraft fuels were different colors for different octane ratings.  If
they were mixed they would turn color less.
Thats the way it was 15 years ago when I was flying.

Bob

2010\07\22@085806 by ivp

face picon face
> were adding an additive that would color the exhaust pipe a bright
> red color.  This would indicate if the no tax fuel was used for highway
> use

I was watching a UK cop show tonight in which they were doing a
red diesel blitz. A few stops were shown, and those found with red
diesel had the vehicle confiscated for a Customs And Excise offense.
The drivers would be assessed for unpaid tax and had to cough up
to get their ride back

Apparently it's becoming rife and costing UKP350m in revenue

Joe

*
*
**********
Quality PIC programmers
http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.htm

2010\07\22@091151 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Hi Bob,

Yes, after I made that remark I looked it up (should have looked it up
BEFORE!) and I saw that there are several possible colors depending on
octane.

I was going by my experience of flying (once) in a Cessna 152. The
instructor and I went through a thorough pre-flight and part of that
was to check for water and other contamination in the fuel at several
points in the fuel system. I recall the fuel being light blue.

Sean



On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:57 AM, BOB <RemoveMEBOBSCNCEraseMEspamEraseMEcharter.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2010\07\22@091151 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Hi Bob,

Yes, after I made that remark I looked it up (should have looked it up
BEFORE!) and I saw that there are several possible colors depending on
octane.

I was going by my experience of flying (once) in a Cessna 152. The
instructor and I went through a thorough pre-flight and part of that
was to check for water and other contamination in the fuel at several
points in the fuel system. I recall the fuel being light blue.

Sean



On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:57 AM, BOB <RemoveMEBOBSCNCspam_OUTspamKILLspamcharter.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2010\07\22@105452 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:57 PM, ivp <RemoveMEjoecolquittTakeThisOuTspamspamclear.net.nz> wrote:

> I was watching a UK cop show tonight in which they were doing a
> red diesel blitz. A few stops were shown, and those found with red
> diesel had the vehicle confiscated for a Customs And Excise offense.
> The drivers would be assessed for unpaid tax and had to cough up
> to get their ride back
>

Hmm, thanks for the notice, I think I will keep all my petrol station
receipts from now on - just in case need to proof where the untaxed fuel was
coming from...

Tamas



>
> Apparently it's becoming rife and costing UKP350m in revenue
>
> Joe
>
> *
> *
> **********
> Quality PIC programmers
> http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.htm
> -

2010\07\22@182303 by ivp

face picon face
> Hmm, thanks for the notice, I think I will keep all my petrol station
> receipts from now on - just in case need to proof where the untaxed
> fuel was coming from...
>
> Tamas

Probably not a bad idea. The program was "Road Wars" BTW. Just
now they're doing a series of episodes in Devon and Cornwall (my
old stomping ground) and the red diesel is described as "for mostly
agricultural uses". An old beaten-up Beamer might sound like a
tractor but that doesn't impress the modern copper who deals with a
seemingly neverending tide of "numties, muppets, planks and wallies"

Over the course of the series I've been surprised at how intrusive
the authorities have become in the UK

4 million surveillance cameras, number plate recognition systems
in police cars and on the roadside, and 1000s of speed cameras

Which is all OK if you're doing nothing wrong but it's still creepy

Joe

*
*
**********
Quality PIC programmers
http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.htm

2010\07\22@194349 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
It is only OK so long as what's considered wrong by the authorities is
actually reasonably wrong :)

Are you sure about 4 million surveillance cameras? Who has the ability
to review all of that video? Are all of those just run by the police
or is that a total of all security cameras owned by anyone? This
figure would mean something like 1 for every 10 people, right?

Sean




On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:22 PM, ivp <EraseMEjoecolquittspamspamspamBeGoneclear.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\07\22@200830 by ivp

face picon face
> Are you sure about 4 million surveillance cameras?

Well, I took at face value what the program said, and it seems to
be true

"Fears that the UK would "sleep-walk into a surveillance society"
have become a reality, the government's information commissioner
has said"

" Britain is 'surveillance society' "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm

"Richard Thomas, who said he raised concerns two years ago, spoke
after research found people's actions were increasingly being monitored.
Researchers highlight "dataveillance", the use of credit card, mobile phone
and loyalty card information, and CCTV.

Monitoring of work rates, travel and telecommunications is also rising.

There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every
14 people

But surveillance ranges from US security agencies monitoring
telecommunications traffic passing through Britain, to key stroke
information used to gauge work rates and GPS information tracking
company vehicles, the Report on the Surveillance Society says"

Euw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television

"Surveillance of the public using CCTV is particularly common in
the UK, where there are reportedly more cameras per person than
in any other country in the world. There and elsewhere, its increasing
use has triggered a debate about security versus privacy"

I think people are generally too non-conformist for things to ever get
to a 1984 / THX-1138 / Logan's Run situation, but if you marry a
totalitarian state (and there are plenty of those around) with advanced
technology it wouldn't take much to get a society under the thumb,
and increasingly so thereafter

I've heard it said that a Londoner may appear on 300 cameras a day

Joe

*
*
**********
Quality PIC programmers
http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.htm

2010\07\22@202040 by ivp

face picon face
> Who has the ability to review all of that video ?

Well, if you like the feeling of a uniform and look forward to
sitting on your arse all day .....

One thing that I can't understand is why security camera footage
is so crappy. When you consider that even a cheap point-and-
shoot digital camera takes great pictures, it seems remarkable that
a grainy black and white picture is regarded as acceptable in a
supposedly high-security building like a bank. Stills I've seen on
TV are so bad you can't even guess at what the person looks like

Joe

*
*
**********
Quality PIC programmers
http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.htm

2010\07\23@043708 by RussellMc

face picon face
> One thing that I can't understand is why security camera footage
> is so crappy. When you consider that even a cheap point-and-
> shoot digital camera takes great pictures, it seems remarkable that
> a grainy black and white picture is regarded as acceptable in a
> supposedly high-security building like a bank. Stills I've seen on
> TV are so bad you can't even guess at what the person looks like

It's probably about data storage.
Which in part may be about a refusal to use a decent coding scheme.
We have 2 x Sanyo Xacti's that record to SD cads and use "true" MP4*.
The use of  true MP4  in a product (and certainly not including
various "MP4 like wannabees) is IMHO a sign that the rest of the
device is liable to be well conceived, reasonably featured and built
by people with technical nouse. There will be exceptions.

AFAIR data rate at highest resolution of 640 x 480 at ?30?
frames/second is 1GB in 45 minutes or about
22MB/minute
370 kB/second
3 Mb/s

24 hours at 1 GB/hr = 24 GB (natch) or will fill a 1 TB drive in about 40 days.

You can use far far lower quality and still get results vastly
superior to what is usually displayed after a crime.

Most other CODECs require more to vastly more storage per time than MP4*.


             Russell

aka ISO/IEC 14496-14:2003 and friends
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_Part_14

2010\07\23@061522 by Alan B Pearce

face picon face
> 4 million surveillance cameras, number plate recognition systems
> in police cars and on the roadside, and 1000s of speed cameras

Don't worry, with the UK Government doing a crash course on slimming
down the budget my local county council has refused to fund all fixed
and mobile speed cameras in Oxfordshire. I suspect many other councils
will be doing the same.

Swindon has refused to fund their cameras for a number of months now, as
they were putting money in, but getting nothing back. They couldn't see
why they couldn't have some return from the resulting fines.

But the NPR cameras do have their uses. There is currently a new program
on one of the channels about motorcycle emergency services, and one
caught the other night was a vehicle that was logged by an NPR unit as
having no vehicle insurance. The motorcycle officer stopped the vehicle,
and in talking to the driver found he was driving unlicensed, at least
what had happened was the driver had had a conviction for which he had
12 months loss of licence. After the 12 months he proceeded to drive
again - but apparently the catch is you have lost your licence until you
resit it, which he hadn't done. The car was impounded and crushed, he
got a whopper fine and was not a happy bunny.
--
Scanned by iCritical.

2010\07\23@061931 by Alan B Pearce

face picon face
> Are you sure about 4 million surveillance cameras? Who has the ability
> to review all of that video? Are all of those just run by the police
> or is that a total of all security cameras owned by anyone? This
> figure would mean something like 1 for every 10 people, right?

Probably not a wrong count. Much of it is video surveillance of shopping
centres and the like, and goes to live screens in a control room
somewhere. It may well be recorded, for use as evidence in trials, but
the recordings are not actively watched later apart from the control
room staff monitoring it, live unless being searched for evidence later.
I don't know what the overwrite period would be.
--
Scanned by iCritical.

2010\07\23@065039 by ivp

face picon face
> But the NPR cameras do have their uses. There is currently a new
> program on one of the channels about motorcycle emergency services,
> and one caught the other night was a vehicle that was logged by an
> NPR unit as having no vehicle insurance

That's the sort of thing I've been seeing. The car will be stopped for
no MOT (certificate of roadworthiness) or no insurance and then the
poking around starts. Usually preceded by "Under Section 23 Of The
Misuse Of Drugs Act I will now conduct a search of the vehicle"

Same on NZ and US cop shows too. Straight in with "Do you have
anything in the vehicle you shouldn't have ?"

In NZ NPR is not used. Not generally anyway. But drivers usually
don't have to make much of an effort to get noticed. Not wearing a
seatbelt, speeding, running stop signs etc

I hear that NPR might be introduced. I evaluated a system many
years ago to put rfID tags on cars to determine at a petrol station
whether they were not road-legal, and thus not able to be fuelled

The project slipped into the background but I was told the other
day that a private member's bill is before the house to introduce
NPR for that purpose. I believe it's already being trialled or used
in Europe somewhere. Pity the rfID idea didn't take off. We could
have been an exporter rather than an importer

Joe

*
*
**********
Quality PIC programmers
http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.htm

2010\07\23@065348 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
 On 23/07/2010 11:19, RemoveMEalan.b.pearceKILLspamspamstfc.ac.uk wrote:
>> Are you sure about 4 million surveillance cameras? Who has the ability
>> to review all of that video? Are all of those just run by the police
>> or is that a total of all security cameras owned by anyone? This
>> figure would mean something like 1 for every 10 people, right?
> Probably not a wrong count. Much of it is video surveillance of shopping
> centres and the like, and goes to live screens in a control room
> somewhere. It may well be recorded, for use as evidence in trials, but
> the recordings are not actively watched later apart from the control
> room staff monitoring it, live unless being searched for evidence later.
> I don't know what the overwrite period would be.
Indeed most is useless for evidence. The Irish police (garda) brought me
a tape to enhance.

The head was 4 pixels. A cheap 35mm camera connected to Motion detector
in the warehouse would have captured a suitable image as that is roughly
2000 x1000 pixels or more.
Most security cameras in analogue days about 1/2 PAL resolution or less
and after analogue VHS time lapse about 250 x 576.

Modern CCD + HDD are often barely 640x480.

Also there has been no major studies to show how much CCTV deters crime
or assists in detection or prosecution. I have met people that wanted to
pay me to fit CCTV and I told them a solid fence at rear was a better
investment.

I had CCTV to monitor "undesirables" in my driveway. They threw a rope
up and hauled off the camera! I didn't replace it. Activity decreased,
maybe they liked performing for the Camera?


2010\07\23@094354 by RussellMc

face picon face
> what had happened was the driver had had a conviction for which he had
> 12 months loss of licence. After the 12 months he proceeded to drive
> again - but apparently the catch is you have lost your licence until you
> resit it, which he hadn't done. The car was impounded and crushed, he
> got a whopper fine and was not a happy bunny.

At face value that sounds like a gross abuse of the powers vested by
we the people in our servants.
In practice it may be far far more complex than that - as is often
enough the case. eg made up example only, he may have owed other fines
so did not want to surface to be identified. etc. Life often manages
more twists and turns than can be fitted into 30 minutes of TV.

             R

2010\07\23@180719 by ivp

face picon face
>> The car was impounded and crushed, he got a whopper fine
>> and was not a happy bunny.
>
> At face value that sounds like a gross abuse of the powers vested
> by we the people in our servants

UK police don't muck around

http://www.whatprice.co.uk/car/no-car-insurance.html

I've seen it several times on TV. No insurance, car is a banger,
driver gets his stuff out of it and just walks away. Next stop for
the car - impound, crusher

Joe

*
*
**********
Quality PIC programmers
http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.ht

2010\07\23@234801 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
ivp wrote:
>>> The car was impounded and crushed, he got a whopper fine
>>> and was not a happy bunny.
>>
>> At face value that sounds like a gross abuse of the powers vested
>> by we the people in our servants
>
> UK police don't muck around
>
> http://www.whatprice.co.uk/car/no-car-insurance.html
>
> I've seen it several times on TV. No insurance, car is a banger,
> driver gets his stuff out of it and just walks away. Next stop for
> the car - impound, crusher

"The move to take cars off the road and crush them has been warmly welcomed by the Association of British Insurers."

Follow the money, as they say.


2010\07\24@000450 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
RussellMc wrote:
{Quote hidden}

A 640x480 cam pointed at the front door of the office, recorded 56.6 GB so far this year (260 GB since May 16, 2007). The other two cams don't see as much traffic so it will be a while before we fill up the 750G drive. Another benefit of motion detection is the ease of locating the part you need.

Vitaliy

2010\07\24@010346 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

>
>> Please note, that here in the UK there are millions of speed cameras on
>> the
>> road, and now they are measuring the average speed instead of
>> the instantaneous on some hot spots. The cameras are digital and they
>> are
>> sending you the fine automatically (it may arrive to your door before
>> you
>> got home :-). Also in France they are measuring the average on the toll
>> gates -- if you were speeding, then they might call the police for a
>> friendly talk. This makes speeding really difficult -- maybe if you have
>> a
>> James Bond car and you can change the number plate between the traps :-)
>>
>> Tamas
>>
>

I remember seeing a movie in high school algebra that showed how speed was
determined between toll booths. It was an introduction to integrals...

Harold


-- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available

2010\07\24@064634 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Thanks for this, Adam. Wondering why car manufacturers are not sharing high
speed fuel efficiency data with us? Or is there any official site or paper
about this subject?

Thanks
Tamas


On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:42 PM, M. Adam Davis <stienmanSTOPspamspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2010\07\26@073822 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, RussellMc <KILLspamapptechnzspamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:
>> what had happened was the driver had had a conviction for which he had
>> 12 months loss of licence. After the 12 months he proceeded to drive
>> again - but apparently the catch is you have lost your licence until you
>> resit it, which he hadn't done. The car was impounded and crushed, he
>> got a whopper fine and was not a happy bunny.
>
> At face value that sounds like a gross abuse of the powers vested by
> we the people in our servants.

A gross abuse of power to take whatever measures are necessary to
prevent somebody from driving who's not supposed to be driving? Seems
like exactly what the law enforcement people should be doing - driving
is still seen far too much as a right rather than a privilege IMO.

Chri

2010\07\26@164953 by cdb

flavicon
face
:: Seems
:: like exactly what the law enforcement people should be doing -
:: driving
:: is still seen far too much as a right rather than a privilege IMO.
::
:: Chris

On the face of it, I disagree, but what we don't know is was it clear to this person they needs to resit a driving test? If it wasn't, then impounding of the car until the test was taken and passed. From what we know there was no attempt to deliberately drive whilst the licence was suspended, therefore the original offence was 'spent'.

If on the other hand, there was a clear notice, and there was evidence that the driver was deliberately flouting the rules for no valid reason, then they've been warned.

Technically my current UK licence lasts until I'm 70, if I return to the UK for a visit I'm breaking the law if I use it as my address is not current (and there is no way to put a foreign address on one), however if I notify Swansea of a change of address my licence will change to whatever the new period is. I believe the penalty for not having the licence details correct is now quite stiff.

OK, what I haven't made clear here is that, non life threatening ' offences ' are being treated in very draconian ways.


--
cdb, EraseMEcolinspamEraseMEbtech-online.co.uk on 27/07/2010
Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk   Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359



2010\07\26@192633 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:49 PM, cdb <@spam@colin@spam@spamspam_OUTbtech-online.co.uk> wrote:
> On the face of it, I disagree, but what we don't know is was it clear to
> this person they needs to resit a driving test?

I'm sure it was made perfectly clear at the time the sentence was
given. Of course I don't know the exact circumstances either, but it's
certainly not standard to have to retake a test after a ban, so there
would have to be some specific reason for it which would have been
spelled out at the time of the sentence. There is one exception - if
you are banned under the new driver's act then you automatically have
to retake your test, but again this should be very common knowledge to
anybody taking a driving test nowadays.

> Technically my current UK licence lasts until I'm 70, if I return to the UK
> for a visit I'm breaking the law if I use it as my address is not current
> (and there is no way to put a foreign address on one), however if I notify
> Swansea of a change of address my licence will change to whatever the new
> period is. I believe the penalty for not having the licence details correct
> is now quite stiff.

That's a strawman, as you wouldn't have your car impounded and crushed
for such an offence. As draconian and excessive as the penalties for
such administrative offences are (I agree with you on that one), it's
something totally different to being banned from driving, and wouldn't
be treated the same at all - it's possible that having a permanent
foreign address you might even get away with it (though I wouldn't bet
your house on it). BTW they haven't changed the expiry of the licence
itself, it's simply that with a change of address you'd have to get a
new photographic licence, and the photo on those has to be renewed
every 10 years (the penalty for not doing so being draconian and
excessive!)

> OK, what I haven't made clear here is that, non life threatening ' offences
> ' are being treated in very draconian ways.

If you're talking about disqualified drivers (including those who have
"forgotten" to retake their test) being treated harshly when they
drive then I disagree. Statistically the offences for which people are
disqualified are life threatening, and there's a reason why drivers
who have previously been disqualified pay vastly increased insurance
premiums.

Chri

2010\07\26@214610 by RussellMc

face picon face
>>> what had happened was the driver had had a conviction for which he had
>>> 12 months loss of licence. After the 12 months he proceeded to drive
>>> again - but apparently the catch is you have lost your licence until you
>>> resit it, which he hadn't done. The car was impounded and crushed, he
>>> got a whopper fine and was not a happy bunny.

>> At face value that sounds like a gross abuse of the powers vested by
>> we the people in our servants.

> A gross abuse of power to ...

I have no argument with people doing sensible well announced
proportionate things.
It's the illogical, semi-secret disproportionate responses that
increasingly occur that are disturbing.

Note that, while brevity is a blessing and an art I should no doubt
work on,  by partially quoting what I sad you essentially misquote me.
Viz - I said:

> At face value that sounds like a gross abuse of the powers vested by
> we the people in our servants.
> In practice it may be far far more complex than that - as is often
> enough the case. eg made up example only, he may have owed other fines
> so did not want to surface to be identified. etc. Life often manages
> more twists and turns than can be fitted into 30 minutes of TV.

I don't have all the facts and it's probable but not certain that you
know little or no more than I do.

Note:

> take whatever measures are necessary to
> prevent somebody from driving who's not supposed to be driving?

Certainly not.
But you seem to have missed what it said (seriously).
As I read it (BIMBW) he had lost his licence for 12 months but the 12
month period had expired. He was entitled to regain his licence BUT to
do so he needed to sit a driving test again. That requirement alone is
questionable - some unknown mix of weeding out those who offend
because of incapacity (sensible, proportionate) and rubbing there
faces in it (eg EXTREME example sending the widow the bill for the
bullet used to execute her husband. Society manages many lesser
versions of this.)
In this case "whatever measures are necessary may seem to be arranging
for him to sit a driving test on pain of penalty, or in conjunction
with a modest but noticeable fine. Or .... Crushing his car seems, at
face value, to be "just a wee bit disproportionate" [tm] penalty for
failing to sit a test for something you would have deemed capable of
apart form an essentially unrelated matter.

> Seems like exactly what the law enforcement people should be doing

One could extend that for example.
Running a STOP sign is far more important than a bureaucratic
hoop-jumping - so car crushing would no doubt be even more Here at
least, justified. Crossing double yellow no overtaking lines here is a
heinous crime - crushing on the spot (if the oncoming traffic doesn't
do it first. Pedestrian fatality on vehicle impact at vehicle speeds
of 50 kph/30 mph is about 50%. Pedestrian  fatality at 70 kph/50 mph
approaches 100% and above that you dies several times over [tm]. SO 50
mph + in a 50 kph zone is threat of near certain death to any child
who runs in front of you car - as  opposed to 50% chance at legal
speeds. [Braking issues can increase the ratio]. So exceeding 50 mph
in a residential zone - crush their car and 50% of their children's
cars to the Nth generation! No?

The major point that I made is, we don't know what REALLY happened
and, as somebody else pointed out, it is reasonably probable in such
cases that the vehicle is an unregistered, un-safety-checked (here
termed Warrant of Fitness) uninsured death trap.
Crushing such MAY be a proportionate response. But a RR Silver Shadow
could under unusual [tm] situations fall into the same category -
would it too be crushed? Should it be? Is the financial penalty
applied meant to be linear or proportionate or ... ?

Again, at FACE VALUE it seemed like a disproportionate senseless
response BUT probably knowing more would make things seem different.

> - driving is still seen far too much as a right rather than a privilege IMO.

I didn't notice anyone suggesting otherwise.
I suspect that most people would agree with that - largely regardless
of their feelings on personal freedoms in other areas.
Maybe not.

I guess I don;t see it as a right OR a privilege. Rather its a
negotiated contract between the driver and the populace as a whole.
Both sides are expected to keep to the contract and "terms and
conditions apply". The substantial majority of contractees need to
agree to the terms, as this is a mutual arrangement amongst
themselves, and if there is enough disagreement then due process can
be used to change things. The nature of "due process": varies by
country :-). If people know what to expect, and a large majority are
in agreement and the conditions of the contract are adequately
promulgated then by all means crush his Roller if it runs a Stop sign
- if that's what the above mentioned contract says.

NZ is in the midst of such a conniption over its blood alcohol driving
limits. The government is resisting, against long term strong advice,
lowering the limit from 80 xxx to 50 xxx. Much vigorous public debate.
All good stuff. Very few will be unaware of the rules when they are
arrived at, changed or not, and the large majority will agree with
them.


          Russel

2010\07\27@043110 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> I'm sure it was made perfectly clear at the time the sentence was
> given. Of course I don't know the exact circumstances either, but it's
> certainly not standard to have to retake a test after a ban

In New Zealand a 12 month or longer ban requires that you need to retake
your test. This has been the case for over 30 years that I know of (no I
haven't fallen foul of the rule ;)) ). If the ban is under 12 months no
test is required.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2010\07\27@045448 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> The major point that I made is, we don't know what REALLY happened
> and, as somebody else pointed out, it is reasonably probable in such
> cases that the vehicle is an unregistered, un-safety-checked
> (here termed Warrant of Fitness) uninsured death trap.

And in the UK it is MOT (Which I believe stands for Ministry of
Transport check).

> Crushing such MAY be a proportionate response. But a RR Silver Shadow
> could under unusual [tm] situations fall into the same category -
> would it too be crushed? Should it be? Is the financial penalty
> applied meant to be linear or proportionate or ... ?

I believe a Rolls Royce has been crushed under this law. See
www.motoring.co.uk/car-news/bmw-s-porsches-and-bentleys-are-crush
ed_13467


The original case that I quoted that started this furore had the driver
as unlicensed, because he didn't resit his test after his ban expired,
he was also uninsured, and I cannot recall if his vehicle had a current
MOT.

But the nub of all this is that all three of the requirements for the
car (insurance, MOT and Road Tax status - not mentioned above) are
notified to the relevant government department that deals with Road Tax.
Nowadays when I take my car for an MOT the garage has a computer link to
notify that a fresh MOT has been issued. When I renew my insurance that
is also notified.
Then when I go to renew the Road Tax for the car, the MOT and insurance
are checked to see that they are current, and only then will the Road
Tax payment be accepted, and the appropriate tax disk for the vehicle
issued.

So when passing an NPR camera if any of these 3 items have expired the
vehicle gets flagged up and pulled over. But one of the other traps to
this is that vehicles that are missing any of these 3 items are also
highly likely to be involved in other forms of crime. In the same TV
program there was a case where a driver had his mothers car, it got
pulled over for some reason, and the driver smelt very strongly of
cannabis, for which a search of the car was carried out, resulting in
other prosecutions unrelated to the original offence.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2010\07\27@084251 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:55 AM,  <spamBeGonealan.b.pearcespamKILLspamstfc.ac.uk> wrote:
> I believe a Rolls Royce has been crushed under this law. See
> www.motoring.co.uk/car-news/bmw-s-porsches-and-bentleys-are-crush
> ed_13467
>
>

Could someone explain to me why the UK government seems fixated on
crushing cars?! If it really is necessary to confiscate the car, and
it is in any kind of workable condition, I'd think it would make sense
to auction it off and use the money as a source of revenue.

Sea

2010\07\27@090535 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Not supposed to be politics here, but, what I have heard in the USA, Rio TInto (very large iron ore (and others) producer), raised price on ore, China balked at higher price, needed scrap to feed furnaces, and cash for clunkers was born. It dried up the market of good used cars. Helped granddaughter find a car recently. The market is starved for cars in the $3000 range. Now the Rio TInto and China have agreed on a price and shipments resumed, the cash for clunkers is disappearing.

On 7/27/2010 8:42 AM, Sean Breheny wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:55 AM,<.....alan.b.pearcespam_OUTspamstfc.ac.uk>  wrote:
>    
>> I believe a Rolls Royce has been crushed under this law. See
>> www.motoring.co.uk/car-news/bmw-s-porsches-and-bentleys-are-crush
>> ed_13467
>>
>>
>>      
> Could someone explain to me why the UK government seems fixated on
> crushing cars?! If it really is necessary to confiscate the car, and
> it is in any kind of workable condition, I'd think it would make sense
> to auction it off and use the money as a source of revenue.
>
> Sean
>

2010\07\27@090846 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> Could someone explain to me why the UK government seems fixated on
> crushing cars?! If it really is necessary to confiscate the car, and
> it is in any kind of workable condition, I'd think it would make sense
> to auction it off and use the money as a source of revenue.

It is more of a deterrent to people. The sentimentality attached to the
vehicle gets damaged if it is destroyed. If the vehicle is seized and
sold the same person could purchase it again, and while they may end up
paying more than if they had paid up for the original fines etc, they
still have the item to which the sentiment is attached. This is probably
more especially so when the 'bling' of the vehicle is associated with
the persons position in a criminal underworld. If the vehicle is seized
and crushed it is more damaging in the eyes of their criminal peers than
if they go and buy the vehicle out of the pound.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2010\07\27@092819 by ivp

face picon face
> It is more of a deterrent to people. The sentimentality attached
> to the vehicle gets damaged if it is destroyed

That's probably the thinking behind having persistent boy racers
being permanently deprived of their prides and joys. Of course
you can remove personal effects, but I don't know if that extends
to things like stereos, fluffy dice, the girlfriend.....

Joe

*
*
**********
Quality PIC programmers
http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.ht

2010\07\27@094147 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> > It is more of a deterrent to people. The sentimentality attached
> > to the vehicle gets damaged if it is destroyed
>
> That's probably the thinking behind having persistent boy racers
> being permanently deprived of their prides and joys. Of course
> you can remove personal effects, but I don't know if that extends
> to things like stereos, fluffy dice, the girlfriend.....

Yes, I notice that some of them get an 'invite' from the judge to come
and watch their pride and joy get lowered into the crusher. Must be
gut-wrenching ... ;)))
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2010\07\27@114411 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Sean Breheny <TakeThisOuTshb7.....spamTakeThisOuTcornell.edu> wrote:

> Could someone explain to me why the UK government seems fixated on
> crushing cars?! If it really is necessary to confiscate the car, and
> it is in any kind of workable condition, I'd think it would make sense
> to auction it off and use the money as a source of revenue.
>

I have just heard that because too many Eastern European failed to pay taxes
and insure their car causing too much trouble using their vehicles illegal
in the UK. And the government wanted to do radical steps to stopping it.
Threatened of being your car crushed might worse than just loosing it
therefore it has a bigger impact. This info might wrong though.

Tamas



>
> Sean
>

2010\07\27@123607 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:43:52 +0100, "Tamas Rudnai" said:

> Threatened of being your car crushed might worse than just loosing it
> therefore it has a bigger impact.
I have raced in a series that was both a "claiming race" (the promoters
could confiscate your car for $500 if they felt you put more money into
your car than the rules allowed) and there was also one car each race,
deemed "the people's curse" for unsportsmanlike conduct, that was
crushed on-site.
Definitely crushing has the feeling of permanence about it. Interesting
psychological experiment.
Cheerful regards,

Bob

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...