|
Interesting new car...
could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a
nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K range. Who'll be the first? http://www.teslamotors.com/ -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
"JohnH" wrote in message ... could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K range. Who'll be the first? http://www.teslamotors.com/ Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet. Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current battery technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and basic E car? Something does not add up. Eisboch |
Interesting new car...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K range. Who'll be the first? http://www.teslamotors.com/ Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet. Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current battery technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and basic E car? Something does not add up. Eisboch You know, for a guy who formerly was engaged in science and manufacturing, you sure miss the important stuff. Didn't you look under the hood and notice the six hamsters hooked up to the crack cocaine pipe? Is that the secret? I am still trying to figure out why the Li-Ion battery in my cell phone goes dead after three calls. Eisboch |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:46:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message .. . could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K range. Who'll be the first? http://www.teslamotors.com/ Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet. Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current battery technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and basic E car? Something does not add up. Eisboch Well, the initial info I got came from the NYTimes, so it must be true. Editorial Go Speed Racer! Published: July 23, 2006 Virtue alone will not break the grip that petroleum holds on the automobile market. That’s why the introduction of a sleek, high-performance roadster that happens to be electric rather than gasoline-fueled is worth noting. Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley start-up, has developed a two-seater that goes from zero to 60 miles an hour in four seconds, leaving the days of electric cars as glorified golf carts in the dust. The company seems to understands what it means to love cars as well as the environment. (On its Web site, Tesla revels in the power of the car’s acceleration pinning passengers to their seats.) With a range of about 250 miles, the Tesla Roadster can go much farther on a single charge than earlier electric cars. And 150 of those miles cost about the same as one gallon of gas. But the car itself will not be cheap, running from $85,000 to $100,000. Rather than a stumbling block in this case, it’s actually a selling point. Martin Eberhard, the company’s chief executive, recognizes that new technologies usually start out as high-end products. He and his team are making their car the newest hot gadget, a status symbol. If rappers and football stars buy them, maybe the company can make a dent in the market. Tesla already has plans for a mainstream vehicle down the road if it can expand its business. Perhaps this is one area where trickle-down theories could really work. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:46:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message .. . could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K range. Who'll be the first? http://www.teslamotors.com/ Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet. Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current battery technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and basic E car? Something does not add up. Eisboch Here's a little more info on the way he uses batteries: http://wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,714...?tw=wn_index_1 This article was a referral from the Tesla site. Checking out some of the other articles may provide more info. 6000+ batteries in the car! -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:46:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K range. Who'll be the first? http://www.teslamotors.com/ Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet. Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current battery technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and basic E car? Something does not add up. Eisboch Well, the initial info I got came from the NYTimes, so it must be true. Editorial Go Speed Racer! Published: July 23, 2006 Virtue alone will not break the grip that petroleum holds on the automobile market. That's why the introduction of a sleek, high-performance roadster that happens to be electric rather than gasoline-fueled is worth noting. Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley start-up, has developed a two-seater that goes from zero to 60 miles an hour in four seconds, leaving the days of electric cars as glorified golf carts in the dust. The company seems to understands what it means to love cars as well as the environment. (On its Web site, Tesla revels in the power of the car's acceleration pinning passengers to their seats.) With a range of about 250 miles, the Tesla Roadster can go much farther on a single charge than earlier electric cars. And 150 of those miles cost about the same as one gallon of gas. But the car itself will not be cheap, running from $85,000 to $100,000. Rather than a stumbling block in this case, it's actually a selling point. Martin Eberhard, the company's chief executive, recognizes that new technologies usually start out as high-end products. He and his team are making their car the newest hot gadget, a status symbol. If rappers and football stars buy them, maybe the company can make a dent in the market. Tesla already has plans for a mainstream vehicle down the road if it can expand its business. Perhaps this is one area where trickle-down theories could really work. I noticed they use a two speed transmission, although you don't have to use first gear. In first gear the regenerative braking system recharges the batteries at a higher rate than second gear. My hunch is that the 250 mile range estimate is based on brand new batteries, driving in first gear only, modest use of the "E" pedal when accelerating and not exceeding about 15-20 mph. I further speculate that under more "normal" driving, the range will be less than half of the claim. Eisboch |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:17:23 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:46:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K range. Who'll be the first? http://www.teslamotors.com/ Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet. Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current battery technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and basic E car? Something does not add up. Eisboch Well, the initial info I got came from the NYTimes, so it must be true. Editorial Go Speed Racer! Published: July 23, 2006 Virtue alone will not break the grip that petroleum holds on the automobile market. That's why the introduction of a sleek, high-performance roadster that happens to be electric rather than gasoline-fueled is worth noting. Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley start-up, has developed a two-seater that goes from zero to 60 miles an hour in four seconds, leaving the days of electric cars as glorified golf carts in the dust. The company seems to understands what it means to love cars as well as the environment. (On its Web site, Tesla revels in the power of the car's acceleration pinning passengers to their seats.) With a range of about 250 miles, the Tesla Roadster can go much farther on a single charge than earlier electric cars. And 150 of those miles cost about the same as one gallon of gas. But the car itself will not be cheap, running from $85,000 to $100,000. Rather than a stumbling block in this case, it's actually a selling point. Martin Eberhard, the company's chief executive, recognizes that new technologies usually start out as high-end products. He and his team are making their car the newest hot gadget, a status symbol. If rappers and football stars buy them, maybe the company can make a dent in the market. Tesla already has plans for a mainstream vehicle down the road if it can expand its business. Perhaps this is one area where trickle-down theories could really work. I noticed they use a two speed transmission, although you don't have to use first gear. In first gear the regenerative braking system recharges the batteries at a higher rate than second gear. My hunch is that the 250 mile range estimate is based on brand new batteries, driving in first gear only, modest use of the "E" pedal when accelerating and not exceeding about 15-20 mph. I further speculate that under more "normal" driving, the range will be less than half of the claim. Eisboch I think you should go buy one, let Chuck test it and write it up, and post the results here. Just remember, you can't trade in the BMW. They don't take trades. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
"JohnH" wrote in message ... I think you should go buy one, let Chuck test it and write it up, and post the results here. Just remember, you can't trade in the BMW. They don't take trades. I noticed that. No matter, I don't want one anyway. I'm saving up for a Smart Car. Eisboch |
Interesting new car...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master at explaining the digital game. I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on some websites. She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8 lbs. She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so I just watch. Eisboch |
Interesting new car...
Speaking of new car ideas, I recently watched a show (History Channel, I think) of the development of the automobile. The early inventors, including Henry Ford, never seriously considered gasoline engines initially. The power of choice in the original car designs was electric (battery). So now, over a hundred years later, the industry is still trying. Eisboch. |
Interesting new car...
-- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:30:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master at explaining the digital game. I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on some websites. She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8 lbs. She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so I just watch. Eisboch Ask her if she's interested in something like this-- http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm I could make her a deal. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
In addition to the above comments (e.g. "up to" 250 miles...), I've
also often wondered what kind of flesh-eating chemical mess you'd be in after a high-speed collision.. Ron M. |
Interesting new car...
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:46:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K range. Who'll be the first? http://www.teslamotors.com/ Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet. Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current battery technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and basic E car? Something does not add up. Eisboch Well, the initial info I got came from the NYTimes, so it must be true. Editorial Go Speed Racer! Published: July 23, 2006 Virtue alone will not break the grip that petroleum holds on the automobile market. That’s why the introduction of a sleek, high-performance roadster that happens to be electric rather than gasoline-fueled is worth noting. Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley start-up, has developed a two-seater that goes from zero to 60 miles an hour in four seconds, leaving the days of electric cars as glorified golf carts in the dust. The company seems to understands what it means to love cars as well as the environment. (On its Web site, Tesla revels in the power of the car’s acceleration pinning passengers to their seats.) With a range of about 250 miles, the Tesla Roadster can go much farther on a single charge than earlier electric cars. And 150 of those miles cost about the same as one gallon of gas. But the car itself will not be cheap, running from $85,000 to $100,000. Rather than a stumbling block in this case, it’s actually a selling point. Martin Eberhard, the company’s chief executive, recognizes that new technologies usually start out as high-end products. He and his team are making their car the newest hot gadget, a status symbol. If rappers and football stars buy them, maybe the company can make a dent in the market. Tesla already has plans for a mainstream vehicle down the road if it can expand its business. Perhaps this is one area where trickle-down theories could really work. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John Bet there will be more pedestrian/auto accidents with them. No one will hear the cars coming.. especially in noisy cities. |
Interesting new car...
Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:30:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master at explaining the digital game. I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on some websites. She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8 lbs. She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so I just watch. Eisboch Ask her if she's interested in something like this-- http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm I could make her a deal. -- It's a hell of a lens, but doesn't it weigh about three pounds? It is a monster of a lens, but I would not trade it in. I like the sharp images and contrast you get with the lens. It is not a "travel" lens you want to use to just hang around your neck. I actually hold the lens in my hand up against my chest or hip at all times, and the strap around my neck is just a "security strap". I have found on cloudy days the F2.8 across the entire range of the zoom will make a big difference, especially in the woods vs. the F5.6 at 200mm on the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens If JohnH wants to get rid of it, he can sell it on EBay and probably get a decent price, but I figure if you amortize it over 20 years it is a cheap lens. Now, if I die early it might not be such a good deal. I am still trying to decide if I really need that sweet wide angle lens you and Ken Rockwell recommended. Do I need the extra 6mm and wider aperture. I think I am going to hold off till they finally deliver my 18-200 and then compare the two lens. -- Reggie That's my story and I am sticking to it! |
Interesting new car...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master at explaining the digital game. I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on some websites. She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8 lbs. She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so I just watch. Eisboch What's she using for lenses? I've got a Nikkor 18-70 ED and a 70-300 ED, both "almost new" that might like a new home. The 18-70 is the lens that Nikon includes in the D70-D70s kits, and the other is a nice, light tele that on the digitals covers 105 to 450 mm. She got a 70-300mm and a wide angle Nikkon something or other (can't remember). She did not get the 18-70mm. I'll ask her when I go home from the boat. Bunch of friends just came back from the annual catch and release shark tournament. They were in a 34' Pursuit and got the bannanas kicked out of them. I was invited to go but passed, thankfully. 15 foot seas, chumming and trying to catch sharks. No thanks. Eisboch |
Interesting new car...
"Don White" wrote in message ... Bet there will be more pedestrian/auto accidents with them. No one will hear the cars coming.. especially in noisy cities. I never thought of that. I can see it now, given our government. There will be federal requirements for a bright, strobe light on the roof and a "ding-ding-ding" announciater whenever it's moving. Eisboch |
Interesting new car...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... The seas were 15-footers when they went out? D'oh. The guys that participate in this shark tournament are all nuts. Most of the boats are bigger than my friend's but even still, drift fishing for sharks in 15 foot seas is not my idea of fun. I did one of these a few years ago on a bigger Hatteras. I am not really into fishing, so I did the video taping for the catch and release judging. I spent the day up on the tuna bridge (one level up above the flybridge) with one arm wrapped around a rail and the other holding the camera. Seas were rough, and the boat was rocking pretty good. Being so high, I'd be rocking 18-20 feet, back and forth, all day. At the end of the day the wind really picked up and we headed in, plowing through 12 footers. It's was the second time in my life that I got sea sick. Oh ... remember the Yellowfin with the three, 275 hp Mercs that I posted a picture of a month or so ago? Those nuts ran out 100 miles from Martha's Vineyard and back in the heavy seas. Lost the windshield on the CC. Eisboch |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:08:35 -0400, JohnH wrote:
Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley start-up, has developed a two-seater that goes from zero to 60 miles an hour in four seconds, leaving the days of electric cars as glorified golf carts in the dust. The company seems to understands what it means to love cars as well as the environment. (On its Web site, Tesla revels in the power of the car’s acceleration pinning passengers to their seats.) With a range of about 250 miles, the Tesla Roadster can go much farther on a single charge than earlier electric cars. And 150 of those miles cost about the same as one gallon of gas. But the car itself will not be cheap, running from $85,000 to $100,000. Rather than a stumbling block in this case, it’s actually a selling point. Nothing really new here. You are forgetting GM's EV1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 Of course GM discontinued them. Oh well, just another good reason for the company's tanking. |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:07:44 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:30:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master at explaining the digital game. I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on some websites. She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8 lbs. She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so I just watch. Eisboch Ask her if she's interested in something like this-- http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm I could make her a deal. -- It's a hell of a lens, but doesn't it weigh about three pounds? It is a monster of a lens, but I would not trade it in. I like the sharp images and contrast you get with the lens. It is not a "travel" lens you want to use to just hang around your neck. I actually hold the lens in my hand up against my chest or hip at all times, and the strap around my neck is just a "security strap". I have found on cloudy days the F2.8 across the entire range of the zoom will make a big difference, especially in the woods vs. the F5.6 at 200mm on the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens If JohnH wants to get rid of it, he can sell it on EBay and probably get a decent price, but I figure if you amortize it over 20 years it is a cheap lens. Now, if I die early it might not be such a good deal. I am still trying to decide if I really need that sweet wide angle lens you and Ken Rockwell recommended. Do I need the extra 6mm and wider aperture. I think I am going to hold off till they finally deliver my 18-200 and then compare the two lens. I think I'll hold off until you compare the two and give us the results of your comparison. Good idea. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:49:07 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:30:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master at explaining the digital game. I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on some websites. She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8 lbs. She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so I just watch. Eisboch Ask her if she's interested in something like this-- http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm I could make her a deal. -- It's a hell of a lens, but doesn't it weigh about three pounds? It is a monster of a lens, but I would not trade it in. I like the sharp images and contrast you get with the lens. It is not a "travel" lens you want to use to just hang around your neck. I actually hold the lens in my hand up against my chest or hip at all times, and the strap around my neck is just a "security strap". I have found on cloudy days the F2.8 across the entire range of the zoom will make a big difference, especially in the woods vs. the F5.6 at 200mm on the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens If JohnH wants to get rid of it, he can sell it on EBay and probably get a decent price, but I figure if you amortize it over 20 years it is a cheap lens. Now, if I die early it might not be such a good deal. I am still trying to decide if I really need that sweet wide angle lens you and Ken Rockwell recommended. Do I need the extra 6mm and wider aperture. I think I am going to hold off till they finally deliver my 18-200 and then compare the two lens. The Tokina is 12-24 and thus 18-36 on a DSLR with a 1.5 sensor. Approximately. The Nikkors are 18 -whatever- and thus 27 - whatever on a DSLR with a 1.5 sensor. Approximately. 27-18 is nine mm, not six mm. Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a good lens. You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an 18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200? You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs. I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the trick. Not all of us are as young as you or have a tripod in our back pocket when the picture presents itself. Are your comments about VR based on experience? -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:59:58 GMT, Don White wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:46:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K range. Who'll be the first? http://www.teslamotors.com/ Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet. Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current battery technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and basic E car? Something does not add up. Eisboch Well, the initial info I got came from the NYTimes, so it must be true. Editorial Go Speed Racer! Published: July 23, 2006 Virtue alone will not break the grip that petroleum holds on the automobile market. That’s why the introduction of a sleek, high-performance roadster that happens to be electric rather than gasoline-fueled is worth noting. Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley start-up, has developed a two-seater that goes from zero to 60 miles an hour in four seconds, leaving the days of electric cars as glorified golf carts in the dust. The company seems to understands what it means to love cars as well as the environment. (On its Web site, Tesla revels in the power of the car’s acceleration pinning passengers to their seats.) With a range of about 250 miles, the Tesla Roadster can go much farther on a single charge than earlier electric cars. And 150 of those miles cost about the same as one gallon of gas. But the car itself will not be cheap, running from $85,000 to $100,000. Rather than a stumbling block in this case, it’s actually a selling point. Martin Eberhard, the company’s chief executive, recognizes that new technologies usually start out as high-end products. He and his team are making their car the newest hot gadget, a status symbol. If rappers and football stars buy them, maybe the company can make a dent in the market. Tesla already has plans for a mainstream vehicle down the road if it can expand its business. Perhaps this is one area where trickle-down theories could really work. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John Bet there will be more pedestrian/auto accidents with them. No one will hear the cars coming.. especially in noisy cities. I think most car noise is behind, not in front, of the car. Harley riders have been trying for years to convince the public that noisy pipes are a safety feature, so cars can hear them coming. What horsepucky. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:59:58 +0000, Don White wrote:
John Bet there will be more pedestrian/auto accidents with them. No one will hear the cars coming.. especially in noisy cities. You can get some electic motorbikes with "Harley" MP3 sound built-in! 'struth! :) Lloyd Sumpter http://www.bcboatnet.org |
Interesting new car...
Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:30:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master at explaining the digital game. I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on some websites. She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8 lbs. She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so I just watch. Eisboch Ask her if she's interested in something like this-- http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm I could make her a deal. -- It's a hell of a lens, but doesn't it weigh about three pounds? It is a monster of a lens, but I would not trade it in. I like the sharp images and contrast you get with the lens. It is not a "travel" lens you want to use to just hang around your neck. I actually hold the lens in my hand up against my chest or hip at all times, and the strap around my neck is just a "security strap". I have found on cloudy days the F2.8 across the entire range of the zoom will make a big difference, especially in the woods vs. the F5.6 at 200mm on the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens If JohnH wants to get rid of it, he can sell it on EBay and probably get a decent price, but I figure if you amortize it over 20 years it is a cheap lens. Now, if I die early it might not be such a good deal. I am still trying to decide if I really need that sweet wide angle lens you and Ken Rockwell recommended. Do I need the extra 6mm and wider aperture. I think I am going to hold off till they finally deliver my 18-200 and then compare the two lens. The Tokina is 12-24 and thus 18-36 on a DSLR with a 1.5 sensor. Approximately. The Nikkors are 18 -whatever- and thus 27 - whatever on a DSLR with a 1.5 sensor. Approximately. 27-18 is nine mm, not six mm. Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a good lens. You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an 18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200? You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs. I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the trick. Harry, I am really looking at the 18-200 VR as a light weight travel lens so you don't have to keep changing lens. It won't be as sharp, as the fast 70-200 F2.8 but it will do when I don't want to carry the extra lens. It is one lens that will work in 90% of the situations, plus the 18-200 VR is 3.8" long and weighs 19.8 oz. so it is easy to carry. Since I am looking at buying the D200 the 18-200VR won't really be a duplicate, it will be a comparable lens for my camera. See the way a compulsive mind can justify things. Do you have a Tokina 12-24 you are interested in selling? -- Reggie That's my story and I am sticking to it! |
Interesting new car...
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:59:58 GMT, Don White wrote: I think most car noise is behind, not in front, of the car. Harley riders have been trying for years to convince the public that noisy pipes are a safety feature, so cars can hear them coming. What horsepucky. It works. I've proved it, both to myself and Mrs.E. I am about to change the pipes on the Ultra - going back to the next level softer - but only because I no longer ride it in Florida, the land of a million white Lincoln Town cars with all the windows up and driven by the hearing impaired ... never mind. They work. I can cite another example that occurred last weekend here in MA. Mrs.E was on the back seat and I was putt-putting (potato, potato) down the road and my eye caught a car approaching from an intersecting road on the right. The driver was a young girl, one hand on the steering wheel, the other holding a cell phone to her ear, and she was booking it up to the intersection, chatting away and looking down the road, away from us. I could tell there was no way she saw us nor was she intending on stopping before turning onto the road that we were on. Pulled on the clutch, gave the throttle a quick "Blap" and she jammed on the brakes, her head jerking around to our direction with a surprised and shocked look on her face. I can do that a heck of a lot faster than trying to brake and find the horn button, and it's a heck of a lot more effective. But, too loud is excessive, I agree. Fortunately, there are fewer hearing impaired drivers up north. BTW ... Harley riders are also the safest, most courteous and slowest riders. Ever notice that? Eisboch |
Interesting new car...
Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:59:58 GMT, Don White wrote: I think most car noise is behind, not in front, of the car. Harley riders have been trying for years to convince the public that noisy pipes are a safety feature, so cars can hear them coming. What horsepucky. It works. I've proved it, both to myself and Mrs.E. I am about to change the pipes on the Ultra - going back to the next level softer - but only because I no longer ride it in Florida, the land of a million white Lincoln Town cars with all the windows up and driven by the hearing impaired ... never mind. They work. I can cite another example that occurred last weekend here in MA. Mrs.E was on the back seat and I was putt-putting (potato, potato) down the road and my eye caught a car approaching from an intersecting road on the right. The driver was a young girl, one hand on the steering wheel, the other holding a cell phone to her ear, and she was booking it up to the intersection, chatting away and looking down the road, away from us. I could tell there was no way she saw us nor was she intending on stopping before turning onto the road that we were on. Pulled on the clutch, gave the throttle a quick "Blap" and she jammed on the brakes, her head jerking around to our direction with a surprised and shocked look on her face. I can do that a heck of a lot faster than trying to brake and find the horn button, and it's a heck of a lot more effective. But, too loud is excessive, I agree. Fortunately, there are fewer hearing impaired drivers up north. BTW ... Harley riders are also the safest, most courteous and slowest riders. Ever notice that? Eisboch I always hear motorcycles and loud cars long before they arrive. Must be an *age* thing. ...you know..like what's the 2nd thing you lose?? |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:05:51 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:59:58 GMT, Don White wrote: I think most car noise is behind, not in front, of the car. Harley riders have been trying for years to convince the public that noisy pipes are a safety feature, so cars can hear them coming. What horsepucky. It works. I've proved it, both to myself and Mrs.E. I am about to change the pipes on the Ultra - going back to the next level softer - but only because I no longer ride it in Florida, the land of a million white Lincoln Town cars with all the windows up and driven by the hearing impaired ... never mind. They work. I can cite another example that occurred last weekend here in MA. Mrs.E was on the back seat and I was putt-putting (potato, potato) down the road and my eye caught a car approaching from an intersecting road on the right. The driver was a young girl, one hand on the steering wheel, the other holding a cell phone to her ear, and she was booking it up to the intersection, chatting away and looking down the road, away from us. I could tell there was no way she saw us nor was she intending on stopping before turning onto the road that we were on. Pulled on the clutch, gave the throttle a quick "Blap" and she jammed on the brakes, her head jerking around to our direction with a surprised and shocked look on her face. I can do that a heck of a lot faster than trying to brake and find the horn button, and it's a heck of a lot more effective. But, too loud is excessive, I agree. Fortunately, there are fewer hearing impaired drivers up north. BTW ... Harley riders are also the safest, most courteous and slowest riders. Ever notice that? Eisboch Except for the noise, I've no complaint with Harley riders. When they're alone or in small groups, two or three, I've always found them courteous, and on the slow side. Sometimes, when they're in bigger groups, they think they own the road. OTOH, when they're riding in a large group, with a police escort, there's nothing cooler, except a pack of Guzzis doing the same thing! I put Fiamm horns on my Guzzi. It took a little wiring and the addition of a relay, but the damn things are LOUD. The horn button is right by my thumb, and takes no more time to push then blipping my throttle would. The advantage is that the horns send the sound to the front of the bike, not the rear. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:22:48 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:30:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master at explaining the digital game. I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on some websites. She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8 lbs. She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so I just watch. Eisboch Ask her if she's interested in something like this-- http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm I could make her a deal. -- It's a hell of a lens, but doesn't it weigh about three pounds? It is a monster of a lens, but I would not trade it in. I like the sharp images and contrast you get with the lens. It is not a "travel" lens you want to use to just hang around your neck. I actually hold the lens in my hand up against my chest or hip at all times, and the strap around my neck is just a "security strap". I have found on cloudy days the F2.8 across the entire range of the zoom will make a big difference, especially in the woods vs. the F5.6 at 200mm on the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens If JohnH wants to get rid of it, he can sell it on EBay and probably get a decent price, but I figure if you amortize it over 20 years it is a cheap lens. Now, if I die early it might not be such a good deal. I am still trying to decide if I really need that sweet wide angle lens you and Ken Rockwell recommended. Do I need the extra 6mm and wider aperture. I think I am going to hold off till they finally deliver my 18-200 and then compare the two lens. The Tokina is 12-24 and thus 18-36 on a DSLR with a 1.5 sensor. Approximately. The Nikkors are 18 -whatever- and thus 27 - whatever on a DSLR with a 1.5 sensor. Approximately. 27-18 is nine mm, not six mm. Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a good lens. You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an 18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200? You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs. I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the trick. Harry, I am really looking at the 18-200 VR as a light weight travel lens so you don't have to keep changing lens. It won't be as sharp, as the fast 70-200 F2.8 but it will do when I don't want to carry the extra lens. It is one lens that will work in 90% of the situations, plus the 18-200 VR is 3.8" long and weighs 19.8 oz. so it is easy to carry. Since I am looking at buying the D200 the 18-200VR won't really be a duplicate, it will be a comparable lens for my camera. See the way a compulsive mind can justify things. Do you have a Tokina 12-24 you are interested in selling? I find nothing wrong with overlapping focal lengths if it saves from having to carry a second lens. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:43:09 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a good lens. You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an 18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200? You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs. I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the trick. Not all of us are as young as you or have a tripod in our back pocket when the picture presents itself. Are your comments about VR based on experience? I don't need VR or a tripod to hold a camera steady with a wide angle, normal, or 18-70 mm lens. These lenses are light enough. Besides, I do a lot of offhand pistol shooting, so I have another activity where being able to hold steady is important. As for age, I suspect we are contemporaries. For a longer tele, I can handhold my 70-300 non-VR steady enough in good light where I can use fast shutter speeds. If not, I'll use a monopod or tripod. Hey, I'm not saying VR isn't a good thing. It probably is on a long, heavy lens, like that monster expensive lens you own. Yes, I have tried a D200 with the 18-200 VR lens. I didn't see where the resultant shots were any better than those I handheld with my 70-300 in decent light. You can't notice a difference looking at the camera display. Only once you've cropped a cat's whisker and blown it up can you see the difference. You need to show us some of the non-tripod pictures you've taken at 300mm. I'll agree the owl picture wasn't too bad! -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:39:07 +0000, Don White wrote:
I always hear motorcycles and loud cars long before they arrive. Must be an *age* thing. ...you know..like what's the 2nd thing you lose?? Yeah, but that's you. If you are depending on noise to alert other drivers, think about all those boom boxes on wheels. You think they can hear anything but their boom boxes? |
Interesting new car...
Eisboch wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:46:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K range. Who'll be the first? http://www.teslamotors.com/ Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet. Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current battery technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and basic E car? Something does not add up. Eisboch Well, the initial info I got came from the NYTimes, so it must be true. Editorial Go Speed Racer! Published: July 23, 2006 Virtue alone will not break the grip that petroleum holds on the automobile market. That's why the introduction of a sleek, high-performance roadster that happens to be electric rather than gasoline-fueled is worth noting. Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley start-up, has developed a two-seater that goes from zero to 60 miles an hour in four seconds, leaving the days of electric cars as glorified golf carts in the dust. The company seems to understands what it means to love cars as well as the environment. (On its Web site, Tesla revels in the power of the car's acceleration pinning passengers to their seats.) With a range of about 250 miles, the Tesla Roadster can go much farther on a single charge than earlier electric cars. And 150 of those miles cost about the same as one gallon of gas. But the car itself will not be cheap, running from $85,000 to $100,000. Rather than a stumbling block in this case, it's actually a selling point. Martin Eberhard, the company's chief executive, recognizes that new technologies usually start out as high-end products. He and his team are making their car the newest hot gadget, a status symbol. If rappers and football stars buy them, maybe the company can make a dent in the market. Tesla already has plans for a mainstream vehicle down the road if it can expand its business. Perhaps this is one area where trickle-down theories could really work. I noticed they use a two speed transmission, although you don't have to use first gear. In first gear the regenerative braking system recharges the batteries at a higher rate than second gear. My hunch is that the 250 mile range estimate is based on brand new batteries, driving in first gear only, modest use of the "E" pedal when accelerating and not exceeding about 15-20 mph. I further speculate that under more "normal" driving, the range will be less than half of the claim. Eisboch Hell, that's no where near the mess that the current EPA mileage predictions on gasoline vehicles are. |
Interesting new car...
Harry Krause wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Harry, I am really looking at the 18-200 VR as a light weight travel lens so you don't have to keep changing lens. It won't be as sharp, as the fast 70-200 F2.8 but it will do when I don't want to carry the extra lens. It is one lens that will work in 90% of the situations, plus the 18-200 VR is 3.8" long and weighs 19.8 oz. so it is easy to carry. Since I am looking at buying the D200 the 18-200VR won't really be a duplicate, it will be a comparable lens for my camera. See the way a compulsive mind can justify things. Do you have a Tokina 12-24 you are interested in selling? Nope. But I've read up on it, and it seems to be a great lens for the price, performing about as well as the Nikkor of the same range, but for half the price. I'm still not convinced, by the way, that zoom lenses are as "sharp" as fixed focal length lenses of "equal" quality. I've not seen the equal, in any zoom lenses, of the old Nikkor 105 2.5, or the old Nikkor 180 2.5, which, if memory serves, weighed about four pounds. It was *the* sports-action lens of its or any time. I owned a 105, but I never could justify the big glass 180. I did borrow one once in a while. These were beautifully made lenses, too, the non-glass portions machined out of quality metal parts, not assembled from cheap plastic. I know that in the 35mm SLR world, that multi-focal length zoom lenses don't hold a candle to fixed focal length lenses. I'd bet the same with DSLR |
Interesting new car...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:32:23 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:43:09 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a good lens. You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an 18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200? You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs. I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the trick. Not all of us are as young as you or have a tripod in our back pocket when the picture presents itself. Are your comments about VR based on experience? I don't need VR or a tripod to hold a camera steady with a wide angle, normal, or 18-70 mm lens. These lenses are light enough. Besides, I do a lot of offhand pistol shooting, so I have another activity where being able to hold steady is important. As for age, I suspect we are contemporaries. For a longer tele, I can handhold my 70-300 non-VR steady enough in good light where I can use fast shutter speeds. If not, I'll use a monopod or tripod. Hey, I'm not saying VR isn't a good thing. It probably is on a long, heavy lens, like that monster expensive lens you own. Yes, I have tried a D200 with the 18-200 VR lens. I didn't see where the resultant shots were any better than those I handheld with my 70-300 in decent light. You can't notice a difference looking at the camera display. Only once you've cropped a cat's whisker and blown it up can you see the difference. I rarely crop cat whiskers and blow them up. In fact, I do most of my composing through the viewfinder and if I crop at all it is on the edges. I'd forgotten how good you were. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:32:23 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:43:09 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a good lens. You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an 18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200? You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs. I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the trick. Not all of us are as young as you or have a tripod in our back pocket when the picture presents itself. Are your comments about VR based on experience? I don't need VR or a tripod to hold a camera steady with a wide angle, normal, or 18-70 mm lens. These lenses are light enough. Besides, I do a lot of offhand pistol shooting, so I have another activity where being able to hold steady is important. As for age, I suspect we are contemporaries. For a longer tele, I can handhold my 70-300 non-VR steady enough in good light where I can use fast shutter speeds. If not, I'll use a monopod or tripod. Hey, I'm not saying VR isn't a good thing. It probably is on a long, heavy lens, like that monster expensive lens you own. Yes, I have tried a D200 with the 18-200 VR lens. I didn't see where the resultant shots were any better than those I handheld with my 70-300 in decent light. You can't notice a difference looking at the camera display. Only once you've cropped a cat's whisker and blown it up can you see the difference. I rarely crop cat whiskers and blow them up. In fact, I do most of my composing through the viewfinder and if I crop at all it is on the edges. I'd forgotten how good you were. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John *were*? |
Interesting new car...
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:08:46 GMT, Don White wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:32:23 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:43:09 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a good lens. You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an 18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200? You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs. I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the trick. Not all of us are as young as you or have a tripod in our back pocket when the picture presents itself. Are your comments about VR based on experience? I don't need VR or a tripod to hold a camera steady with a wide angle, normal, or 18-70 mm lens. These lenses are light enough. Besides, I do a lot of offhand pistol shooting, so I have another activity where being able to hold steady is important. As for age, I suspect we are contemporaries. For a longer tele, I can handhold my 70-300 non-VR steady enough in good light where I can use fast shutter speeds. If not, I'll use a monopod or tripod. Hey, I'm not saying VR isn't a good thing. It probably is on a long, heavy lens, like that monster expensive lens you own. Yes, I have tried a D200 with the 18-200 VR lens. I didn't see where the resultant shots were any better than those I handheld with my 70-300 in decent light. You can't notice a difference looking at the camera display. Only once you've cropped a cat's whisker and blown it up can you see the difference. I rarely crop cat whiskers and blow them up. In fact, I do most of my composing through the viewfinder and if I crop at all it is on the edges. I'd forgotten how good you were. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John *were*? Whoops! -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Interesting new car...
LOFL!
Eisboch wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K range. Who'll be the first? http://www.teslamotors.com/ Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet. Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current battery technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and basic E car? Something does not add up. Eisboch You know, for a guy who formerly was engaged in science and manufacturing, you sure miss the important stuff. Didn't you look under the hood and notice the six hamsters hooked up to the crack cocaine pipe? Is that the secret? I am still trying to figure out why the Li-Ion battery in my cell phone goes dead after three calls. Eisboch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com