On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:37:07 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:

> 1/4 mile from a standing start isn't going to be low times for a car
> designed to go 250 MPH, it's going to be high-geared... For example, a
> McClaren F1 ($800k) does the 1/4 in about 11 seconds...

Ah, that's the trick - I read it as they did 144 through the 1/4 mile, 
which in retrospect isn't what they measured at all.  It was from a 
standing start through 1/4 mile and the 144 MPH was the speed at the end 
of the track.

That makes a lot more sense now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

<snip>
> It's got a CD-changer in the front, which is nice. It's slot-loading 
> though, so any CDs you put in it are likely to get ruined.
<snip>

O_o

This logic astounds me!

Cheers Dre

Post a reply to this message

DungBeatle wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4b68a304$1@news.povray.org...
>> DungBeatle wrote:
>>> There's a picture of a traffic light in Dallas, Texas
> where
>>> they are horizontal (you have to scroll down):
>> I was simplifying. Of course we have horizontal lights,
> vertical lights,
>> lights with only one light, etc. But if the light's
> vertical, red is on the
>> top here, and if it's horizontal, red is on the left,
> assuming it has a red.
>> This really wasn't a trick question. There's really only
> one way to read
>> "what color is the light on top"?
> 
> The U.S. has taken steps to deal with this problem:

What problem?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> I suck at driving even at games so I thought I'd be putting people's lifes
> at danger behind a wheel. :)

Ditto.

And then there's the money cost, and the pollution (which I'd contribute 
to), and the traffic (which I'd contribute to *and* suffer myself).

I see too many negatives and few positives...

Post a reply to this message

> It's the age of the car.

I know, my point being that since at least 20 years most cars have had at 
least 5 gears.

> I tended to skip gears when I had a manual transmission, often going from 
> 2 to 4 for example.

I very rarely skip going up gears, but often when braking I skip 2 or 3 on 
the way down.

Post a reply to this message

> What does this sign mean?
>
> A. Stop.
> B. Stop if there is traffic coming.
> C. Stop if you feel like it.
> D. Go.
>
>
>
> I'm not kidding. That's really what option C actually said.

Those questions are all really stupid.  My favourite:

You come up behind a slow driver, you should:

A. Drive as close as possible to him to make him speed up.
B. Leave a safe distance and overtake only when you are sure it is safe to 
do so.
C. Press your horn repeatedly to let him know you want to go past.
D. Ram him off the road.

I dunno, but when I did it, it was with pencil and paper, and you had 35 
questions like the above to do in 45 minutes.  After 10-15 minutes I (and a 
few others) had finished, checked and double-checked and left.  I wonder if 
anyone actually stayed until the end?

Post a reply to this message

> I didn't actually check the rev count, but in 5th gear, the car seems very 
> reluctant to go much faster than roughly 65.

OK road test results at 65 mph.

Rather conveniently the speed of traffic on the autobahn on my commute home 
is about 65 mph so it was quite easy to test out.

3rd gear : Almost hitting the start of the dotted red line on the rev 
counter, any useful acceleration in this gear will be outweighed by having 
to change up in 0.2 seconds so a bit pointless at this speed.
4th gear : Most acceleration available here, I would guess this gear is good 
for up to 80 or 90 mph if you really wanted to speed up quickly.  Engine 
noticeably "revving", wouldn't like to cruise in this gear.
5th gear : Not as much acceleration as 4th but still speeds up fairly 
quickly, would be good up to about 110 mph.  Sounds pretty relaxed, at 65mph 
I often leave it in 5th if it's busy and I need to speed up/slow down 
frequently.
6th gear : Not much acceleration here, but I assume uses least fuel, good up 
to 140 mph :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Those questions are all really stupid.  My favourite:
> 
> You come up behind a slow driver, you should:
> 
> A. Drive as close as possible to him to make him speed up.
> B. Leave a safe distance and overtake only when you are sure it is safe 
> to do so.
> C. Press your horn repeatedly to let him know you want to go past.
> D. Ram him off the road.
> 
> I dunno, but when I did it, it was with pencil and paper, and you had 35 
> questions like the above to do in 45 minutes.  After 10-15 minutes I 
> (and a few others) had finished, checked and double-checked and left.  I 
> wonder if anyone actually stayed until the end?

I was the first person to leave also. My sister wasn't far behind.

I wonder if anybody actually chose options C or D? And if they did, this 
ought to be an instant failure - but I suspect what actually happens is 
that if you get X questions correct, you pass, regardless of which 
questions you got right or how dangerous your wrong answers were.

One of the other questions was something like

When driving on a motorway, which lane should you use?

A. The outside lane.
B. The insane lane.
C. The lane with the least traffic.
D. The outermost lane that's going fast enough.

I'm thinking that people might geniunely believe that C is the correct 
answer. I mean, if you weren't very clear on the rules of the road, 
option C seems logically reasonable. (The correct answer is obviously D.)

I guess some of the people taking the test might not know enough English 
to know what a ****-off big sign saying "STOP" means. (But then, how are 
you reading the test questions?)

But some of the questions - like the one you gave above - are so 
mind-bendingly stupid that it's unsurprising that I got a 98% score.

(The question I got wrong was related to stopping distances. Face it, do 
*you* know whether the quoted stopping distance at 70 MPH is 310 yards 
or 320 yards? Because I have absolutely no clue. I also have no clue how 
far 320 yards *is* in the first place, so it seems kind of moot to me...)

Post a reply to this message

Dre wrote:
> <snip>
>> It's got a CD-changer in the front, which is nice. It's slot-loading 
>> though, so any CDs you put in it are likely to get ruined.
> <snip>
> 
> O_o
> 
> This logic astounds me!

In what way?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Overall I'm happy with my car. Just gotta iron out the kinks. (Starting 
> with that back window...) Oh, and it would be kind of nice if I could 
> look up the spec list for it, but first I'd have to figure out WTF it *is*!

The car is undeniably a Renault Megane Dynamique 5-door with a 2.0 L 
petrol engine. (Actually 1998cc.)

However... is it a 2.0 T 16V or a 2.0 VVT?

The documentation from the shop says it's the VVT. The stickers on the 
car itself just say "2.0 16V". The registration document merely says 
"Renault Megane" and no further details beyond the engine size. The DVLA 
website won't tell me anything further.

I guess it only makes 20 BHP difference either way...

Post a reply to this message