|
Back to the Dakota..
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:54:16 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: So, you now have a car with 4 times the mass using about the same tire contact area as the motorcycle. BS. Cite? http://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/911- carrera/featuresandspecs/ (140kg laden weight) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducati_848 (Dry weight 370 pounds, so if you take it's laden weight of say 600 pounds we're close) BTW... like many sports and race cars, my old Boxster's rear tires had a lot of camber to allow the tire to have better contact with the road when in a high speed turn. Wears out the inside edge quickly, but increases grip dramatically. That big, flat patch of rubber stays on the pavement. Bikes can't have flat surfaced tires, so their contact patches are very small all the time. Oh, now you want to talk specialty cars, but street motorcycles!!!!! Well, the contact are for a road course motorcycle is large as well for just that purpose. Plus, you've forgotten that pesky physical fact that you are trying to turn 4 or 5 times the mass of something that wants to go straight. No, the facts (lap times) I posted were for race cars and race bikes, on the same course, and the cars were faster. The contact patch is more than 4 or 5 times larger for the road course car. And the Boxster is no more a "specialty" car than the average crotch rocket is a specialty bike. They are both built to handle and go fast, but are street legal. |
Back to the Dakota..
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:54:16 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: So, you now have a car with 4 times the mass using about the same tire contact area as the motorcycle. BS. Cite? http://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/911- carrera/featuresandspecs/ (140kg laden weight) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducati_848 (Dry weight 370 pounds, so if you take it's laden weight of say 600 pounds we're close) No, your BS about contact patch. This, remember? "So, you now have a car with 4 times the mass using about the same tire contact area as the motorcycle." |
Back to the Dakota..
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:11:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:54:16 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: So, you now have a car with 4 times the mass using about the same tire contact area as the motorcycle. BS. Cite? http://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/911- carrera/featuresandspecs/ (140kg laden weight) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducati_848 (Dry weight 370 pounds, so if you take it's laden weight of say 600 pounds we're close) BTW... like many sports and race cars, my old Boxster's rear tires had a lot of camber to allow the tire to have better contact with the road when in a high speed turn. Wears out the inside edge quickly, but increases grip dramatically. That big, flat patch of rubber stays on the pavement. Bikes can't have flat surfaced tires, so their contact patches are very small all the time. Oh, now you want to talk specialty cars, but street motorcycles!!!!! Well, the contact are for a road course motorcycle is large as well for just that purpose. Plus, you've forgotten that pesky physical fact that you are trying to turn 4 or 5 times the mass of something that wants to go straight. No, the facts (lap times) I posted were for race cars and race bikes, on the same course, and the cars were faster. The contact patch is more than 4 or 5 times larger for the road course car. And the Boxster is no more a "specialty" car than the average crotch rocket is a specialty bike. They are both built to handle and go fast, but are street legal. You STILL just simply ignore physics and instead talk anecdotal what ifs. The contact patch is no where near 4 times that of the motorcycle, AND as stated earlier by Eisboch, because of the high CG of the car, it's mass is all distributed to the two outside tires, add to that that the CG is above those tires. With the motorcycle, it leans, so the CG is more in line with the vector AND the tires. What IS much greater with the car is the centrifugal force. You're relying on a textbook and ignoring reality. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:11:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:54:16 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: So, you now have a car with 4 times the mass using about the same tire contact area as the motorcycle. BS. Cite? http://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/911- carrera/featuresandspecs/ (140kg laden weight) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducati_848 (Dry weight 370 pounds, so if you take it's laden weight of say 600 pounds we're close) BTW... like many sports and race cars, my old Boxster's rear tires had a lot of camber to allow the tire to have better contact with the road when in a high speed turn. Wears out the inside edge quickly, but increases grip dramatically. That big, flat patch of rubber stays on the pavement. Bikes can't have flat surfaced tires, so their contact patches are very small all the time. Oh, now you want to talk specialty cars, but street motorcycles!!!!! Well, the contact are for a road course motorcycle is large as well for just that purpose. Plus, you've forgotten that pesky physical fact that you are trying to turn 4 or 5 times the mass of something that wants to go straight. No, the facts (lap times) I posted were for race cars and race bikes, on the same course, and the cars were faster. The contact patch is more than 4 or 5 times larger for the road course car. And the Boxster is no more a "specialty" car than the average crotch rocket is a specialty bike. They are both built to handle and go fast, but are street legal. You STILL just simply ignore physics and instead talk anecdotal what ifs. The contact patch is no where near 4 times that of the motorcycle, AND as stated earlier by Eisboch, because of the high CG of the car, it's mass is all distributed to the two outside tires, add to that that the CG is above those tires. With the motorcycle, it leans, so the CG is more in line with the vector AND the tires. What IS much greater with the car is the centrifugal force. You're relying on a textbook and ignoring reality. Physics IS reality. Now, I'll tell you why you think that a car corners better than a motorcycle. It's simply because of it's ability to out brake. A motorcycle, because of it's small mass compared to a car wants to flip over when braking, a car does not, also, if braking BEFORE the radius, the car's mass will shift to the front wheels, making lots of traction, while the bike's much less mass won't do as much work. |
Back to the Dakota..
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:46:29 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:11:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:54:16 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: So, you now have a car with 4 times the mass using about the same tire contact area as the motorcycle. BS. Cite? http://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/911- carrera/featuresandspecs/ (140kg laden weight) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducati_848 (Dry weight 370 pounds, so if you take it's laden weight of say 600 pounds we're close) BTW... like many sports and race cars, my old Boxster's rear tires had a lot of camber to allow the tire to have better contact with the road when in a high speed turn. Wears out the inside edge quickly, but increases grip dramatically. That big, flat patch of rubber stays on the pavement. Bikes can't have flat surfaced tires, so their contact patches are very small all the time. Oh, now you want to talk specialty cars, but street motorcycles!!!!! Well, the contact are for a road course motorcycle is large as well for just that purpose. Plus, you've forgotten that pesky physical fact that you are trying to turn 4 or 5 times the mass of something that wants to go straight. No, the facts (lap times) I posted were for race cars and race bikes, on the same course, and the cars were faster. The contact patch is more than 4 or 5 times larger for the road course car. And the Boxster is no more a "specialty" car than the average crotch rocket is a specialty bike. They are both built to handle and go fast, but are street legal. You STILL just simply ignore physics and instead talk anecdotal what ifs. The contact patch is no where near 4 times that of the motorcycle, AND as stated earlier by Eisboch, because of the high CG of the car, it's mass is all distributed to the two outside tires, add to that that the CG is above those tires. With the motorcycle, it leans, so the CG is more in line with the vector AND the tires. What IS much greater with the car is the centrifugal force. You're relying on a textbook and ignoring reality. Physics IS reality. You're touting one tiny bit of physics as if it represents the entire situation. That's like saying a single peach pit defines and entire peach orchard. Now, I'll tell you why you think that a car corners better than a motorcycle. It's simply because of it's ability to out brake. A motorcycle, because of it's small mass compared to a car wants to flip over when braking, a car does not, also, if braking BEFORE the radius, the car's mass will shift to the front wheels, making lots of traction, while the bike's much less mass won't do as much work. That's not why I think that. And you're wrong about the bike's braking, too. It wants to flip because it's CG is located so high and close to the front wheel's axle. If it's wheelbase was longer, with the mass located lower and further back, the front could brake harder without flipping. Simple physics! |
Back to the Dakota..
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:54:52 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:11:07 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: You ignore the reality that if you spin out in a car the car needs body work, on a bike, the rider needs body work. I have been wondering when someone would mention that. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:46:29 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:11:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:54:16 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: So, you now have a car with 4 times the mass using about the same tire contact area as the motorcycle. BS. Cite? http://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/911- carrera/featuresandspecs/ (140kg laden weight) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducati_848 (Dry weight 370 pounds, so if you take it's laden weight of say 600 pounds we're close) BTW... like many sports and race cars, my old Boxster's rear tires had a lot of camber to allow the tire to have better contact with the road when in a high speed turn. Wears out the inside edge quickly, but increases grip dramatically. That big, flat patch of rubber stays on the pavement. Bikes can't have flat surfaced tires, so their contact patches are very small all the time. Oh, now you want to talk specialty cars, but street motorcycles!!!!! Well, the contact are for a road course motorcycle is large as well for just that purpose. Plus, you've forgotten that pesky physical fact that you are trying to turn 4 or 5 times the mass of something that wants to go straight. No, the facts (lap times) I posted were for race cars and race bikes, on the same course, and the cars were faster. The contact patch is more than 4 or 5 times larger for the road course car. And the Boxster is no more a "specialty" car than the average crotch rocket is a specialty bike. They are both built to handle and go fast, but are street legal. You STILL just simply ignore physics and instead talk anecdotal what ifs. The contact patch is no where near 4 times that of the motorcycle, AND as stated earlier by Eisboch, because of the high CG of the car, it's mass is all distributed to the two outside tires, add to that that the CG is above those tires. With the motorcycle, it leans, so the CG is more in line with the vector AND the tires. What IS much greater with the car is the centrifugal force. You're relying on a textbook and ignoring reality. Physics IS reality. You're touting one tiny bit of physics as if it represents the entire situation. That's like saying a single peach pit defines and entire peach orchard. Now, I'll tell you why you think that a car corners better than a motorcycle. It's simply because of it's ability to out brake. A motorcycle, because of it's small mass compared to a car wants to flip over when braking, a car does not, also, if braking BEFORE the radius, the car's mass will shift to the front wheels, making lots of traction, while the bike's much less mass won't do as much work. That's not why I think that. And you're wrong about the bike's braking, too. It wants to flip because it's CG is located so high and close to the front wheel's axle. If it's wheelbase was longer, with the mass located lower and further back, the front could brake harder without flipping. Simple physics! Holy cow!!! You STILL are denying the existence of the most important aspect, MASS!!!! |
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:38:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
Within 5 minutes the car vents were blowing nice, ice cold air and I felt pretty proud of myself. Rechecked the new diode and it's fine, so hopefully it will keep working. === Nice job. It sounds like a classic case of two simultaneous problems. The first recharge didn't work because the bad diode wouldn't let the compressor kick in. The compressor has to be running for a proper recharge in my (limited) experience. |
Back to the Dakota..
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:13:35 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
The recharge "kit" refrigerant contains a lubricant and a "seal conditioner" that is advertised to stop the leaks caused from non-use, assuming the seal is not destroyed. They also sell replacement seals and a UV dye and light kit that you can hunt the leak down with. ==== If that doesn't work I have an electronic leak detector that I use on the boat refrigeration systems. It has already paid for itself. |
Back to the Dakota..
"thumper" wrote in message ...
On 6/7/2013 1:27 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:16:33 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: I am thinking the Dakota might do better than that with the trailer because of the V8.. === Frankly I doubt it. My V8 Tundra is about the same size engine and it gets about 9 mpg pulling a 6,500 pound boat/trailer combo. I usually get about 11-12 mpg pulling a 4500 lb. boat with a 5.3L and 4.10 rear end. Lots of hills... We could probably graph gross weight vs mpg with various vehicles and get a fairly continuous curve. I get 13.5-16 towing my boat, about 4400#. Lots of hills, some mountains. But my tow vehicle is a 2004 Duramax LLY diesel. |
Back to the Dakota..
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ...
On 6/7/2013 2:28 PM, True North wrote: On Friday, 7 June 2013 14:18:42 UTC-3, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote: On 6/7/2013 12:50 PM, John H wrote: On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:01:20 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Drove a BIG F150 last night... hated it. I mean, it has everything I need but I just don't like driving that huge monstrosity... Think I would get over it soon enough? I went from a Toyota 4Runner to a 4WD Silverado 2500HD. Pretty big jump. Get used to it pretty quickly - or hit a lot of stuff. John H. Yeah, it was funny... I had to let the guy back it back in after the test drive cause I couldn't find the button for the mirror:) This one had the 5.4Triton engine, it did have some balls... But again, the smaller Dakota with the 4.7 seemed to actually have better acceleration... with no load. No backup camera? First time for me with the Highlander and it's great for close in work..such as lining up ball to trailer coupler. Not in my price range... But I really don't need one, like I said before, I can back 'em up. I hook up my Jeep by myself all the time. I pull within a foot or two of the ball and jump out. Then I do a visual of how far I need to come like 11 inches, 14 inches whatever (point A to point B)... Then I get in the truck (leaving the door open) and look at the lowest corner of the door and the point it covers on the ground. Then look at a point exactly the distance behind that point as the distance from "point A to B" and focus on that point. Then I back my truck till the corner of the door is at that point, jump out and hook it up. I usually get within a half inch or so and the hitch drops right on for me... Of course when you jump out you note if you need to make a left or right correction too. You \can buy an after market backup camera for less than $80. |
Back to the Dakota..
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:46:52 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:01:20 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Drove a BIG F150 last night... hated it. I mean, it has everything I need but I just don't like driving that huge monstrosity... Think I would get over it soon enough? I went from a Toyota 4Runner to a 4WD Silverado 2500HD. Pretty big jump. Get used to it pretty quickly - or hit a lot of stuff. John H. I have an F-150 SuperCrew and I love it. Nobody pulls out in front of you when you are driving down the road. Mine has a 156 ince wheel base and I can do a 3 point turn in my two car driveway. Whenever I go somewhere I do stratigic parking, park out where nobody is. I've also noticed how courteous drivers have become since I got the Silverado. It's a remarkable transformation. I had no idea my purchase of a big pickup would improve the manners of such a great many people! John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! -------- I have not noticed extra care. They still cut over in front when merging, and making the last moment to get the offramp when I am towing. The extra safety space is too attractive I guess. Especially ****es me off when the cut in at the last moment and then hit the brakes. I think I need a video camera on the dash and use that to show their stupidness when I sue them after running over them. |
Back to the Dakota..
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... On 6/9/13 10:42 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 6/9/2013 10:34 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 6/9/13 10:26 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 6/9/2013 10:20 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Saturday, June 8, 2013 9:21:43 AM UTC-4, John H wrote: On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:46:52 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:01:20 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Drove a BIG F150 last night... hated it. I mean, it has everything I need but I just don't like driving that huge monstrosity... Think I would get over it soon enough? I went from a Toyota 4Runner to a 4WD Silverado 2500HD. Pretty big jump. Get used to it pretty quickly - or hit a lot of stuff. John H. I have an F-150 SuperCrew and I love it. Nobody pulls out in front of you when you are driving down the road. Mine has a 156 ince wheel base and I can do a 3 point turn in my two car driveway. Whenever I go somewhere I do stratigic parking, park out where nobody is. I've also noticed how courteous drivers have become since I got the Silverado. It's a remarkable transformation. I had no idea my purchase of a big pickup would improve the manners of such a great many people! Funny... I've notice that people react to the Corvette in different ways. One of the most aggressive reactions is from guys in pickups! They want to race me for some reason. Crazy. Young guys in Mustangs tend to leave me alone :-) (I like Mustangs, BTW) Yeah, and they still have the best "retro remake" in my opinion... The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. The newer Mustangs, at least the "GT" models, are great for short people with well-padded butts. They ride very hard. The "regular" non-GT Mustangs are very popular down here in Southern Maryland with high school girls and recent grads. Yellow is a favorite color of the girly girl set. Nice looking cars, though. If I could have any car as an every day driver... it would be a 40 Ford Coupe... black, whitewalls, no fancy stuff... stock looking at first glance.. I love it when I see those old things going down the road. I like the old cars, too. I'm old enough to remember when many of the pre and post WWII cars were still on the road, and not as restored antiques. My grandfather, my mother's father, had a 1939 two door Ford that I think looked exactly like this: http://tinyurl.com/ot6eoal He had that car until 1950, when he got a Plymouth that looked like this: http://tinyurl.com/q52e7ax Pretty much the color I remember, too. He was an awful driver, scared everyone to death who rode in those cars with him. He referred to his cars as a "motor." Not a car, not an auto, but a "motor." I don't know how that started with him. My favorite of the old, old cars is a 1956 Ford Fairlane convertible. A true work of art! http://tinyurl.com/3493m7 ----------------------------------- First car I bought was a 1956 Ford Fairlane Convertible. Was a POS in a lot of ways, but the heater was fantastic. Replaced that with a 55 Chevy convertible, with a factory stick shift. Can not own a Corvette as I still have a great lust for speed, and if I bought another Vette, I would probably be without a drivers license. |
Back to the Dakota..
wrote in message ...
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:56:54 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 6/10/2013 9:37 PM, wrote: You still don't know where the gas went. You will be back. Maybe not.. A lot of these kits now have "stop leak" built in. Some have the black light dye too so you can go back and find the leak. A good tip for Dick might be just to go back and check all the joints... Just a note, Greg is refering to the fact that the stuff that goes in there doesn't degrade or "go bad", if it's not working, it's not there anymore, there is a leak.. At least for freon, etc... Yup that is what I was talking about. On the F-150 there were several leaks and we ended up with a compressor, a condenser, all the hoses and a dryer. It came with a lifetime guarantee and my wife stayed in their butt until it was perfect. A grand seemed like a lot of money but 10 years later it seemed like a good deal. ---------------- Ford had some bad seals. Factory should have replaced them, but not a safety issue. My wife's Aerostar had seal problems. so eventually paid money to have them replaced. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com