In the category of "I realise nobody actually gives a damn but I'm going 
to tell you all anyway": I have a new car.

Or rather, a newER car.

I had a mark-I Renault Megane. I now have a mark-II Renault Megane with 
a bigger engine. (I still have yet to determine *exactly* what model 
I've bought, but it has a 2.0 L petrol engine which may or may not be 
turbocharged.)

It's the one with the unspeakably ugly arse. The one I've always hated 
and said nobody should ever buy. And it's grey. Metalic grey. I'm still 
not entirely sure why I did this. I can only conclude it had something 
to do with the cute girl selling it to me...

Being a new car, it comes with its own new set of niggles.

- The back is ugly, like I said. The front isn't the pretiest thing 
ever, but actually seeing it in daylight, it's not that bad.

- It's grey, the most boring colour known to mankind. Even the 
backlights on the instrument panels are grey.

- The clutch doesn't enguage until you completely remove your foot from 
the pedal. You can lift the pedal all the way from the floor to almost 
fully released, and you're still not moving. Only in the last 5mm or so 
of travel do you get any power to the wheels.

- You don't get a key. Instead, you get a huge lump of plastic. If this 
is within 200 yards of the car, all the doors unlock, and the "start" 
button is enabled. (Yes, you actually start the engine by pressing a 
huge "start" button. How stupid is that?)

This means that if I park my car and go shopping, and I happen to walk 
past a shop front that's fairly close to the car park, my car will 
unlock itself and allow anybody who notices and hops in to start the 
engine and drive off.

(Presumably once they get out of range, the engine will stop and they'll 
be locked in? Or maybe it won't - imagine if you were driving the car 
normally and the radio ran out of battery power. Could be quite a safety 
issue!)

I still haven't found a way to lock the car yet. Presumably if I walk 
far enough away, it will lock. (But I'll be far away, so I have no way 
of verifying this.)

- Rather than having the normal 4 or the extravagent 5 gears, it has 6. 
I'm not sure why. You'd think they would use this to add more gears to 
the top of the range; but no. They just took the other gears and spaced 
them closer together. In other words, you need to change gear more 
often. (Which, considering that the clutch doesn't work properly, isn't 
much fun.)

- Due to the absurd conical shape of the rear screen, the wiper only 
wipes approximately 10% of it. Admittedly the 10% in the middle, which 
is the part you're most likely to want to see out of, but even so. Oh, 
and the screen is tiny in the first place anyway.

- It does not appear to be possible to turn the headlights on or off. 
They just turn themselves on or off when they feel like it. (Presumably 
too many French people decided to drive off in the middle of the night 
with no lights on or something?)

In addition to all this, it has the usual minor stuff that all cars 
have. The wipers don't work very well (but then, they never do). The 
brakes are very sharp. (Presumably it just had new brake shoes or 
something.) It's taken me ages to fiddle with all the mirrors such that 
I can see properly. And so on.

So it's a rubbish car then?

Well, not so much. The steering is absurdly light - not sure if that's 
good or bad. The suspension seems... "better" somehow. The car doesn't 
tip over when it goes around corners, and driving over lumpy roads (or 
just ramps) doesn't shake you around so much. It's better-damped or 
something.

I couldn't say whether the 20% bigger engine makes it go any faster, 
since I'm constantly in the wrong gear. (I've yet to figure out how to 
access 6th gear. Every time I try I get 4th instead.) Selecting reverse 
is a tad tricky too. I guess I'll get used to it.

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. But then, I 
always use custom CDs for the car anyway. If one gets broke, I burn 
another copy.

All of the windows are electric, not just the front ones. And it has air 
conditioning. (Does anybody else remember when only the most expensive 
luxury cars costing more than the average house had such features?)

In spite of the wonky back end, the boot is surprisingly spacious. And 
its floor is *flat*, which is useful. I pity anyone who has to ride in 
the back seat though. You'd have to be a dwarf or something! ;-) Then 
again, I'm not expecting to have more than one passenger, ever.

On an unrelated note, I asked my insurers to transfer my car insurance, 
but they screwed up. The net result of this is that I'm now with a 
different insurance company who charge me about 40% less for more 
comprehensive insurance. My mother seems kind of annoyed that she's not 
a named driver any more - but, um, WHY? You have your own car, women! WTF?

My mum was always borrowing my car because it's much bigger than her 
little toy car. But now she has a people carrier, so I see no reason for 
her to ever come anywhere near my car. :-P

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*!

Post a reply to this message

> - The back is ugly, like I said. The front isn't the pretiest thing ever, 
> but actually seeing it in daylight, it's not that bad.

And at dusk/night I guess you can't see it because it's dark grey :-)

> - The clutch doesn't enguage until you completely remove your foot from 
> the pedal. You can lift the pedal all the way from the floor to almost 
> fully released, and you're still not moving. Only in the last 5mm or so of 
> travel do you get any power to the wheels.

My car is the opposite, the clutch engages as soon as you lift your foot 
even slightly, and then there's only about 5mm until it's fully engaged. 
Real fun if I drive a car like yours temporarily (eg a hire car) then go 
back to my car, you end up jerking forwards and stalling a lot!

> This means that if I park my car and go shopping, and I happen to walk 
> past a shop front that's fairly close to the car park, my car will unlock 
> itself and allow anybody who notices and hops in to start the engine and 
> drive off.

Mine is similar, but I have to put the "key" into the slot before I can 
press the start button.  Are you sure the engine start button works as soon 
as the doors are unlocked?  Maybe the key needs to be closer to the car 
(like 1 meter) before it will start?

> I still haven't found a way to lock the car yet. Presumably if I walk far 
> enough away, it will lock. (But I'll be far away, so I have no way of 
> verifying this.)

Yes that seems silly, it would mean my car would never lock as there are 
typically only a couple of walls between my keys and my car.  Are there no 
buttons on the "key" to force it to lock?

> - Rather than having the normal 4 or the extravagent 5 gears, it has 6. 
> I'm not sure why.

It is not normal to have 4 gears - maybe 30 years ago it was.  The last car 
I saw with 4 gears cost me 100 pounds 10 years ago, and it was already 10 
years old.  Nowadays any car with a half decent engine has 6 gears.

> You'd think they would use this to add more gears to the top of the range; 
> but no.

Uhh, why?  I have never thought to myself "oh i wish i had a 7th gear to 
change up into now".

> brakes are very sharp. (Presumably it just had new brake shoes or 
> something.)

Or maybe because it actually has 4 brake discs with pads and no drums or 
shoes :-)

> 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*!

http://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk/EvlPortalApp/index.jsp

Click "Vehicle Enquiry" on the left and type in your registration number.

Post a reply to this message

>> - The back is ugly, like I said. The front isn't the pretiest thing 
>> ever, but actually seeing it in daylight, it's not that bad.
> 
> And at dusk/night I guess you can't see it because it's dark grey :-)

Well, it's metallic so it's sort-of shiny. But no, you can't really see 
what anything looks like properly under low-pressure sodium lamps.

>> - The clutch doesn't enguage until you completely remove your foot 
>> from the pedal. You can lift the pedal all the way from the floor to 
>> almost fully released, and you're still not moving. Only in the last 
>> 5mm or so of travel do you get any power to the wheels.
> 
> My car is the opposite, the clutch engages as soon as you lift your foot 
> even slightly, and then there's only about 5mm until it's fully engaged. 
> Real fun if I drive a car like yours temporarily (eg a hire car) then go 
> back to my car, you end up jerking forwards and stalling a lot!

Yeah. I spent a lot of time on my way to work this morning sitting at 
traffic lights reving the nuts of my engine while not actually going 
anywhere.

My old car, as you release the pedal you gradually get more drive. On 
this one, it seems to be either "on" or "off". And it's only "on" when 
the pedal is 100% released.

>> This means that if I park my car and go shopping, and I happen to walk 
>> past a shop front that's fairly close to the car park, my car will 
>> unlock itself and allow anybody who notices and hops in to start the 
>> engine and drive off.
> 
> Mine is similar, but I have to put the "key" into the slot before I can 
> press the start button.  Are you sure the engine start button works as 
> soon as the doors are unlocked?  Maybe the key needs to be closer to the 
> car (like 1 meter) before it will start?

Mine does in fact have a slot to insert the key into. But this morning 
the key never left my coat pocket, on the back seat, and the car still 
started just fine.

More interesting is the fact that you can't turn the lights off, even 
when the engine isn't running. Sounds like a nice recipe for a flat battery!

>> I still haven't found a way to lock the car yet. Presumably if I walk 
>> far enough away, it will lock. (But I'll be far away, so I have no way 
>> of verifying this.)
> 
> Yes that seems silly, it would mean my car would never lock as there are 
> typically only a couple of walls between my keys and my car.  Are there 
> no buttons on the "key" to force it to lock?

There are, but the markings on them have almost completely worn off, so 
I can't tell what they do.

>> - Rather than having the normal 4 or the extravagent 5 gears, it has 
>> 6. I'm not sure why.
> 
> It is not normal to have 4 gears - maybe 30 years ago it was.  The last 
> car I saw with 4 gears cost me 100 pounds 10 years ago, and it was 
> already 10 years old.  Nowadays any car with a half decent engine has 6 
> gears.

I have never seen any car anywhere with 6 gears in my entire life. I've 
only seen one or two that have 5 gears. I still don't really see what 
the advantage is. (Other than that bigger numbers sell more...)

>> You'd think they would use this to add more gears to the top of the 
>> range; but no.
> 
> Uhh, why?  I have never thought to myself "oh i wish i had a 7th gear to 
> change up into now".

I think that all the time...

>> brakes are very sharp. (Presumably it just had new brake shoes or 
>> something.)
> 
> Or maybe because it actually has 4 brake discs with pads and no drums or 
> shoes :-)

I was under the impression that drum brakes are more efficient.

>> 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*!
> 
> http://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk/EvlPortalApp/index.jsp
> 
> Click "Vehicle Enquiry" on the left and type in your registration number.

I already did that. It tells me it's a 2.0 L engine and that the CO2 
emissions are 191 g/Km (I don't know if that's measured or spec'd), and 
the date of manufacture. Doesn't tell me anything extra about the exact 
model. (In fact, you have to tell then the make and model along with the 
registration number.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Yes that seems silly, it would mean my car would never lock as there are
> > typically only a couple of walls between my keys and my car.  Are there
> > no buttons on the "key" to force it to lock?
>
> There are, but the markings on them have almost completely worn off, so
> I can't tell what they do.

Doesn't the manual tell you all this info? I'd have a quick flick through that
if it were me.

Post a reply to this message

>>> Yes that seems silly, it would mean my car would never lock as there are
>>> typically only a couple of walls between my keys and my car.  Are there
>>> no buttons on the "key" to force it to lock?
>> There are, but the markings on them have almost completely worn off, so
>> I can't tell what they do.
> 
> Doesn't the manual tell you all this info? I'd have a quick flick through that
> if it were me.

Yeah, I only got the car last night. I hope they included a manual...

Post a reply to this message

> More interesting is the fact that you can't turn the lights off, even when 
> the engine isn't running. Sounds like a nice recipe for a flat battery!

Most cars now will switch off any electrical devices after a certain time to 
avoid a flat battery.

> I have never seen any car anywhere with 6 gears in my entire life.

What has that got to do with what actually exists and is being made out 
there in the real world?

> I still don't really see what the advantage is. (Other than that bigger 
> numbers sell more...)

You can keep the engine revs in your desired range (eg for quietness, fuel 
economy or performance) for more of the time.  If you only have 4 gears that 
span from 5 to 120 mph, then you are going to be forced to use a very wide 
range of the engine's rpm, with 6 gears you get more choice of whether to 
stay 1000-2000 rpm for quietness, 4000-6000 rpm for performance, etc.

At one extreme you have a car with just one gear, a lot of go-karts are like 
this, and it's just like driving a car stuck in 3rd gear.  The acceleration 
is rubbish until about 40 mph, then you get a kick of power up to about 80, 
then you're on the rev-limiter so can't go any faster.  The other extreme is 
trucks, they have like 30 gears, and they need that many because the big 
diesel engines typically only produce useful power over a very narrow range 
of speeds.

>> Uhh, why?  I have never thought to myself "oh i wish i had a 7th gear to 
>> change up into now".
>
> I think that all the time...

What benefit would that give?

> I was under the impression that drum brakes are more efficient.

The problem with drum brakes is that all the heat builds up inside and can't 
go anywhere, a drum brake designed for a certain application will be bigger 
and heavier than a disc brake capable of dissipating the same amount of 
heat.  Anyway, today, only the smallest cars have drum brakes, and even then 
only on the rear two wheels where not much braking effort needs to be done. 
I think they are cheaper, and help with connecting in the handbrake or 
something.

> I already did that. It tells me it's a 2.0 L engine and that the CO2 
> emissions are 191 g/Km (I don't know if that's measured or spec'd), and 
> the date of manufacture. Doesn't tell me anything extra about the exact 
> model. (In fact, you have to tell then the make and model along with the 
> registration number.)

Hmm, I thought I recalled it giving more info than that.  Maybe try a couple 
of those online insurance quote websites, they quite often take your 
registration number and give you the spec.  Or if all else fails simply take 
it to a Renault dealer and ask them, they will likely check the serial 
number and find it out for you.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> Yes that seems silly, it would mean my car would never lock as there are
> >>> typically only a couple of walls between my keys and my car.  Are there
> >>> no buttons on the "key" to force it to lock?
> >> There are, but the markings on them have almost completely worn off, so
> >> I can't tell what they do.
> >
> > Doesn't the manual tell you all this info? I'd have a quick flick through that
> > if it were me.
>
> Yeah, I only got the car last night. I hope they included a manual...

Check the glovebox :). Even if it's missing (I assume this is a used car?) you
should be able to find something online.

Post a reply to this message

>> More interesting is the fact that you can't turn the lights off, even 
>> when the engine isn't running. Sounds like a nice recipe for a flat 
>> battery!
> 
> Most cars now will switch off any electrical devices after a certain 
> time to avoid a flat battery.

Here's to hoping...

>> I have never seen any car anywhere with 6 gears in my entire life.
> 
> What has that got to do with what actually exists and is being made out 
> there in the real world?

Well, I've seen quite a few cars, and almost all of them had 4 gears. I 
suppose alternatively I could pluck numbers out of thin air and claim 
that had more to do with reality. :-P

>> I still don't really see what the advantage is. (Other than that 
>> bigger numbers sell more...)
> 
> You can keep the engine revs in your desired range (eg for quietness, 
> fuel economy or performance) for more of the time.  If you only have 4 
> gears that span from 5 to 120 mph, then you are going to be forced to 
> use a very wide range of the engine's rpm, with 6 gears you get more 
> choice of whether to stay 1000-2000 rpm for quietness, 4000-6000 rpm for 
> performance, etc.

And yet, the gears are spaced so that changing gear is only useful at 
speeds below 50 MPH. Once you're doing more than 50, you're in top gear 
and there's no advantage. That's what I don't get.

> The other extreme is trucks, they have like 30 gears, and they need that 
> many because the big diesel engines typically only produce useful power 
> over a very narrow range of speeds.

...seriously?? O_O

>>> Uhh, why?  I have never thought to myself "oh i wish i had a 7th gear 
>>> to change up into now".
>>
>> I think that all the time...
> 
> What benefit would that give?

It's just that when the engine revs get high, you feel like you should 
be changing up a gear. (But there aren't any.)

I guess it might allow you to cruse along the motorways at high speed 
without having to have the engine running at 8,000 RPM, which might 
reduce wear a little... but no, not much of an advantage. (And yet... 
this car has 6 gears for some reason.)

>> I was under the impression that drum brakes are more efficient.
> 
> The problem with drum brakes is that all the heat builds up inside and 
> can't go anywhere, a drum brake designed for a certain application will 
> be bigger and heavier than a disc brake capable of dissipating the same 
> amount of heat.  Anyway, today, only the smallest cars have drum brakes, 
> and even then only on the rear two wheels where not much braking effort 
> needs to be done. I think they are cheaper, and help with connecting in 
> the handbrake or something.

Interesting. I always through disk brakes are cheaper, so they use those 
where they can't afford to fit propper drum brakes.

>> I already did that. It tells me it's a 2.0 L engine and that the CO2 
>> emissions are 191 g/Km (I don't know if that's measured or spec'd), 
>> and the date of manufacture. Doesn't tell me anything extra about the 
>> exact model. (In fact, you have to tell then the make and model along 
>> with the registration number.)
> 
> Hmm, I thought I recalled it giving more info than that.

I had expected it to also... but no.

> Maybe try a 
> couple of those online insurance quote websites, they quite often take 
> your registration number and give you the spec.  Or if all else fails 
> simply take it to a Renault dealer and ask them, they will likely check 
> the serial number and find it out for you.

Yeah, I could do...

I know it's a Renault Megane Dynamique 2.0 L pretrol, but I can't figure 
out exactly what engine type it is.

Post a reply to this message

>> Yeah, I only got the car last night. I hope they included a manual...
> 
> Check the glovebox :)

WIN!

Post a reply to this message

> Well, I've seen quite a few cars, and almost all of them had 4 gears.

Funny, I usually take about 10 rental cars per year and I don't recall any 
of them ever having 4 gears, even when I picked the absolute cheapest one 
they offered.  Can you give any examples?

> And yet, the gears are spaced so that changing gear is only useful at 
> speeds below 50 MPH. Once you're doing more than 50, you're in top gear 
> and there's no advantage.

Some people like to accelerate above 50 MPH you know :-)  I suspect at 50 
mph in your car you still have the choice of 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th gears, 
how is that not useful?  Even at 80 mph I suspect that 4th gear would still 
be available to give you the maximum acceleration (should you ever need it). 
That's the idea of gears.

> It's just that when the engine revs get high, you feel like you should be 
> changing up a gear. (But there aren't any.)

Driving around at low revs might be fine at low speeds, but at higher speeds 
you *need* the higher rpms to generate the power to overcome the air drag. 
6th gear is designed specifically so that the engine is developing its 
maximum power at the top speed of your car, otherwise you wouldn't be able 
to reach that speed!

> I guess it might allow you to cruse along the motorways at high speed 
> without having to have the engine running at 8,000 RPM,

If you are revving near the redline in top gear then it probably means you 
*need* that much power from your engine to maintain that speed.  If you 
change up a gear you're no longer going to have the torque needed to 
maintain that speed.

> Interesting. I always through disk brakes are cheaper, so they use those 
> where they can't afford to fit propper drum brakes.

Hehe no, otherwise F1 cars would use drum brakes and cheap cars would use 
disc brakes.  It's the other way around.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Well, I've seen quite a few cars, and almost all of them had 4 gears.
> 
> Funny, I usually take about 10 rental cars per year and I don't recall 
> any of them ever having 4 gears, even when I picked the absolute 
> cheapest one they offered.  Can you give any examples?
> 
>> And yet, the gears are spaced so that changing gear is only useful at 
>> speeds below 50 MPH. Once you're doing more than 50, you're in top 
>> gear and there's no advantage.
> 
> Some people like to accelerate above 50 MPH you know :-)  I suspect at 
> 50 mph in your car you still have the choice of 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th 
> gears, how is that not useful?  Even at 80 mph I suspect that 4th gear 
> would still be available to give you the maximum acceleration (should 
> you ever need it). That's the idea of gears.

Doesn't match what I have observed. If this were the case, it would be 
*useful*, and indeed this is was I was expecting to find.

On the contrary, it appears that unless you're in 6th gear, you can't 
exceed about 65 MPH.

If the gears were more spaced out, then at high speed I'd have a choice 
of gears, and I could use that to get more acceleration. But no, the 
gears are all bunched up at the low speeds, where I didn't have an 
acceleration problem in the first place, even with my old Pergeot with 
just 4 gears. This is what's puzzling me.

>> It's just that when the engine revs get high, you feel like you should 
>> be changing up a gear. (But there aren't any.)
> 
> Driving around at low revs might be fine at low speeds, but at higher 
> speeds you *need* the higher rpms to generate the power to overcome the 
> air drag. 6th gear is designed specifically so that the engine is 
> developing its maximum power at the top speed of your car, otherwise you 
> wouldn't be able to reach that speed!

Mmm, OK.

BTW, is drag proportional to speed linearly? Or quadratically? Or...?

>> Interesting. I always through disk brakes are cheaper, so they use 
>> those where they can't afford to fit propper drum brakes.
> 
> Hehe no, otherwise F1 cars would use drum brakes and cheap cars would 
> use disc brakes.  It's the other way around.

It's news to me that it *is* the other way around. I thought F1 cars had 
drum brakes. (You'll be surprised to hear that I haven't actually taken 
too many F1 cars apart.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I have a new car.

  I don't have even a driver's license.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I have a new car.
> 
>   I don't have even a driver's license.

This does not preclude you from owning a car. Only from driving one. On 
a public road. Which is basically the only sane reason for owning a car 
in the first place. But still! What was I talking about? Hmm...

Post a reply to this message

> On the contrary, it appears that unless you're in 6th gear, you can't 
> exceed about 65 MPH.

Wow.  Are you really saying that at 60mph the RPMs in 5th gear are at 6000 
or something?  That sounds more like 3rd gear in my car - I can see now why 
you are annoyed!

> BTW, is drag proportional to speed linearly? Or quadratically? Or...?

Roughly speed squared.  But the power needed to overcome a certain force is 
also proportional to the speed.  So in the end the power needed to maintain 
a certain speed is proportional to speed cubed.

> It's news to me that it *is* the other way around. I thought F1 cars had 
> drum brakes. (You'll be surprised to hear that I haven't actually taken 
> too many F1 cars apart.)

You used to be able to see them easily before they started using those silly 
bits of aerodynamic plastic around them.  You can also sometimes see the 
discs glowing bright orange through the wheel under heavy braking.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/formula-one-12.gif

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   I don't have even a driver's license.

Fun fact: I passed my driving theory test first time. One of the 
questions was this:



[Picture of a sign. It's red, octagonal, and says "STOP" in large white 
letters in the middle.]

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.

I can see somebody geniunely thinking that B might be the correct answer 
I suppose. But beyond that, the only sane reason I can see for this 
question even existing is that some applicants might be so bad at 
English that they can't actually comprehend road signs. Certainly there 
are plenty of signs far more obscure than this.

(For example, a blue circle with red edges and a red cross through it. 
Wanna take a guess what that means?)

Post a reply to this message

>> On the contrary, it appears that unless you're in 6th gear, you can't 
>> exceed about 65 MPH.
> 
> Wow.  Are you really saying that at 60mph the RPMs in 5th gear are at 
> 6000 or something?  That sounds more like 3rd gear in my car - I can see 
> now why you are annoyed!

I didn't actually check the rev count, but in 5th gear, the car seems 
very reluctant to go much faster than roughly 65. Which means that if I 
want to drive on a motorway, I literally *have* to switch to 6th - 
difficult as that is. If it weren't for this, I probably just wouldn't 
use 6th at all.

Like I say, in 1st gear, accelerating generally isn't an issue, no 
matter how whimpy your car is. It's when you're zooming down a motorway 
that there's no acceleration left, so that's where I would have expected 
extra gears to be added.

>> BTW, is drag proportional to speed linearly? Or quadratically? Or...?
> 
> Roughly speed squared.  But the power needed to overcome a certain force 
> is also proportional to the speed.  So in the end the power needed to 
> maintain a certain speed is proportional to speed cubed.

I see... That would explain the statistic about the Bugatti Veyron only 
needing 100 horsepower to get up to 100 MPH, but needing a further 800 
hp to get up to top speed. (Or something like that.)

>> It's news to me that it *is* the other way around. I thought F1 cars 
>> had drum brakes. (You'll be surprised to hear that I haven't actually 
>> taken too many F1 cars apart.)
> 
> You used to be able to see them easily before they started using those 
> silly bits of aerodynamic plastic around them.  You can also sometimes 
> see the discs glowing bright orange through the wheel under heavy braking.

Ah yes, F1 cars, the ultimate example of engineering in the raggid edge. :-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On the contrary, it appears that unless you're in 6th gear, you can't
> exceed about 65 MPH.

Haha, I drive an 18 year old 1.1L peugeot (also 5 gears - there's another data
point ;-) and regularly exceed 65mph in 4th - indeed, it's often the only way I
can get up to motorway speed quick enough on certain slip roads!

Post a reply to this message

> Like I say, in 1st gear, accelerating generally isn't an issue, no matter 
> how whimpy your car is. It's when you're zooming down a motorway that 
> there's no acceleration left, so that's where I would have expected extra 
> gears to be added.

It seems your car is just badly designed then, in most cars I've driven at 
65 mph you can easily switch down 1 or 2 gears to get more acceleration 
without going anywhere near the redline of the engine.  In fact in my first 
few cars you *had* to do this when the motorway went up a hill, otherwise 
you'd gradually come to a stop!  MAybe you were in 3rd gear instead of 
5th...  It seems to be that in 3rd gear you'd get stuck at about 65mph and 
not be able to go much faster - I'll try it on my car on the way home :-)

> I see... That would explain the statistic about the Bugatti Veyron only 
> needing 100 horsepower to get up to 100 MPH, but needing a further 800 hp 
> to get up to top speed. (Or something like that.)

Yup, if you want double the top speed you need 8x the power!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> In the category of "I realise nobody actually gives a damn but I'm going
> to tell you all anyway": I have a new car.

yet into that category, here's another useless tidbit:  I don't drive cars.  I
don't know how and I don't give a damn, I just take the bus or subway.

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

so, there you go:  a highly useful skill you've got and I don't.  should make
your day... :P

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> On the contrary, it appears that unless you're in 6th gear, you can't
>> exceed about 65 MPH.
> 
> Haha, I drive an 18 year old 1.1L peugeot (also 5 gears - there's another data
> point ;-) and regularly exceed 65mph in 4th - indeed, it's often the only way I
> can get up to motorway speed quick enough on certain slip roads!

My 4-gear Peugeot 1.1 seemed happy to do 60 or so in 3rd gear. But then, 
while it had a small engine, it was also pretty light too...

Post a reply to this message

>> In the category of "I realise nobody actually gives a damn but I'm going
>> to tell you all anyway": I have a new car.
> 
> yet into that category, here's another useless tidbit:  I don't drive cars.  I
> don't know how and I don't give a damn, I just take the bus or subway.

So you live in a place that *has* busses?

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

If driving a real car was anything remotely like driving that "thing" in 
HalfLife 2, most of the population would be dead by now!

> so, there you go:  a highly useful skill you've got and I don't.  should make
> your day... :P

Heh, I don't know about that... but I *am* going dancing tonight. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Random unstoppable craziness:

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

"At a constant 155 mph, the Veyron is using approximately 270 of its 
1001 horsepower; the next 100 mph requires 730 additional horsepower."

"The tyres will only last for about fifteen minutes, but it's okay 
because the fuel runs out in twelve minutes."

"2.46 MPG"

"Base price: £840,000/$1,550,000"

It has square pistons, 10 radiators, 4 turbochargers, 64 valves and a 
total displacement of 8 litres. Truly, this car is ****ing insane. o_O

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b6852cb$1@news.povray.org...
> Random unstoppable craziness:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron

It was the fastest production car in the world, now this is
the fastest:

http://www.shelbysupercars.com/car-specs.php


~db

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Funny, I usually take about 10 rental cars per year and I don't recall 
> any of them ever having 4 gears, even when I picked the absolute 
> cheapest one they offered.  Can you give any examples?

It's the age of the car. Go try to find a 64GB disk drive on the shelves 
today.  As technology progressed, more gears got easier to build in, so they 
did. It makes the ride smoother (on an automatic) and more efficient on a 
manual.

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

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

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I'm not kidding. That's really what option C actually said.

I dunno. I was in a driver's ed class in high school, and one of the 
questions what "which color is on top on a traffic light." Something like 
80% of the class got that wrong.  HELLO?!?

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:43:43 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Invisible wrote:
>> I'm not kidding. That's really what option C actually said.
> 
> I dunno. I was in a driver's ed class in high school, and one of the
> questions what "which color is on top on a traffic light." Something
> like 80% of the class got that wrong.  HELLO?!?

Depending on where you are (and I know you're in CA), though, "red" might 
be the wrong answer.  I've been places where green was on top (though I 
can't remember where), and I've been to places where the lights are 
arranged horizontally (IIRC, Detroit is like that).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:28:58 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron

Yes, a very pretty car, but very expensive to drive.  I loved seeing it 
on Top Gear a couple series ago.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b688910@news.povray.org...

> Depending on where you are (and I know you're in CA),
though, "red" might
> be the wrong answer.  I've been places where green was on
top (though I
> can't remember where), and I've been to places where the
lights are
> arranged horizontally (IIRC, Detroit is like that).--Jim

There's a picture of a traffic light in Dallas, Texas where
they are horizontal (you have to scroll down):

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

There a quite a few unusual configurations on that web
page...

~db

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:38:55 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:

> It was the fastest production car in the world, now this is the fastest:
> 
> http://www.shelbysupercars.com/car-specs.php

Wow - though I wonder about that "1/4 Mile" world record - I would think 
that any car capable of sustaining 144 MPH would do 1/4 mile in the same 
amount of time - and wouldn't that be 6.25 seconds, not 9.90 seconds?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b688b33$1@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:38:55 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:
>
> > It was the fastest production car in the world, now this
is the fastest:
> >
> > http://www.shelbysupercars.com/car-specs.php
>
> Wow - though I wonder about that "1/4 Mile" world record -
I would think
> that any car capable of sustaining 144 MPH would do 1/4
mile in the same
> amount of time - and wouldn't that be 6.25 seconds, not
9.90 seconds?--Jim

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...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Depending on where you are (and I know you're in CA), though, "red" might 
> be the wrong answer.  I've been places where green was on top (though I 
> can't remember where), and I've been to places where the lights are 
> arranged horizontally (IIRC, Detroit is like that).

Everywhere in the USA, red is on the top or the left. I'm pretty sure the 
introductory class on how to drive that they teach when you're about to turn 
old enough to get a driver license isn't addressing that in a country on the 
other side of the world, lights are arranged differently. :-)

No, it was just that 80% of the class never looked out the window while 
being driven around, I guess.

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

Post a reply to this message

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"?

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

Post a reply to this message

"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:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

On December 16, 2009 a final rule adopting the 2009 Edition
of the MUTCD was published in the Federal Register. States
must adopt the 2009 National MUTCD as their legal State
standard for traffic control devices within two years.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:09:55 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Everywhere in the USA, red is on the top or the left. I'm pretty sure
> the introductory class on how to drive that they teach when you're about
> to turn old enough to get a driver license isn't addressing that in a
> country on the other side of the world, lights are arranged differently.
> :-)
> 
> No, it was just that 80% of the class never looked out the window while
> being driven around, I guess.

Well, yeah - I just was observing that the answer to the question could 
be a trick - not that it was likely. :-)

Over here, people would say you were nuts if you said that red+yellow 
could be lit at the same time, or yellow+green could be, but that is the 
way the lights in the UK are. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

> (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?

Oh come on, you mean you didn't simply memorise the deacceleration they were 
assuming, then used a constant acceleration formula in the test to work it 
out? :-)

> 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...)

About the distance between the "///" 300 metre exit marker and the actual 
exit itself on the motorway.  BTW most modern cars can stop from 70 mph in 
well under 100 metres, but they seem to have not updated the test answers in 
50 years to account for this.

Post a reply to this message

> 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 VVT probably has 16V too.  If you have the turbo you'd probably be able 
to hear it, speed up to about 3000 rpm in 2nd or 3rd gear, then take your 
foot off the throttle, you should be able to hear it making a faint high 
pitch whining noise.

Post a reply to this message

>> (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?
> 
> Oh come on, you mean you didn't simply memorise the deacceleration they 
> were assuming, then used a constant acceleration formula in the test to 
> work it out? :-)

I didn't know much mechanics back then.

>> 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...)
> 
> About the distance between the "///" 300 metre exit marker and the 
> actual exit itself on the motorway.

Isn't that 300 yards, not 300 meters?

> BTW most modern cars can stop from 
> 70 mph in well under 100 metres, but they seem to have not updated the 
> test answers in 50 years to account for this.

Presumably because if you pass your driving test, you could be driving a 
50 year old car. Hypothetically.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> 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 VVT probably has 16V too.

This is the problem.

> If you have the turbo you'd probably be 
> able to hear it, speed up to about 3000 rpm in 2nd or 3rd gear, then 
> take your foot off the throttle, you should be able to hear it making a 
> faint high pitch whining noise.

One of the most striking things about this car is that it's quiet to the 
point that you can barely tell whether the engine is actually running at 
all.

 From what I've seen, if a car has turbo, it constantly makes that 
annoying whistling sound. Also, if you floor it, nothing happens for 4 
seconds, and *then* it takes off like a rocket.

Neither of these things appear to be the case with my car. (Not that 
I've actually tried driving it fast. I'm too busy constantly changing 
gears to concentrate on the road...)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> 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. But then, I 
> always use custom CDs for the car anyway. If one gets broke, I burn 
> another copy.

Ooo... According to the spec sheet, the CD-changer is optional. And it 
may or may not support MP3. I wonder how I find out?

You'd think there would be a big MP3 sticker splashed colourfully across 
the dashboard, but I don't see one. Still, I guess I can burn a disk and 
see what happens.

6 CDs is one thing, but if this sucker supports MP3, it can fit, like, 2 
years' worth of music on there. And let's face it, a car has got to be 
the ultimate place to use lossy compression. I mean, who's going to hear 
the difference? The speaker systems is crap anyway, and there's so much 
noise around...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Also, if you floor it, nothing happens for 4 
> seconds, and *then* it takes off like a rocket.

This happens in many cars, but mostly automatics, where the transmission is 
shifting down thru those six gears to get to the one you want.

Also annoying if you can't start and stop easily while driving slowly (by 
which I mean 10-15mph).

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

Post a reply to this message