P plate training ...not

Joe Public should be keeping the scene clear of further accidents and
keeping themselves and others out of D-> danger. Then contacting people
with the skills to undertake a rescue if they don't know what they are
doing.

There is no need for others to get hurt.

Do you think you would? Do you think you have to?

Hammo

 

My Commodore also rings for the Ambulance after an airbag deployment.

Boxer

 

In aus.motorcycles on 6 Feb 2007 14:54:36 -0800

Sounds good to me.

Silly to hide it in a thread about cars though.....


Zebee

 

???

Inner west? Do tell...

big (My local is the Golden Barley now...)

 

Well you have got a rather large nose...

;-)

big

 

Nev.. wrote:

Oh! OK, I didn't know that...sounds fairly reasonable. Thanks.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

I do remember someone telling me that the top-of-the-line BMs had some
kind of driver acknowledgment code, which, if it didn't get it after
air-bags deployed, it would call 000.

Does "the battery leads sever themselves with a pyrotechnic charge"
sound scarey to anyone else?

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Also agreed.

"Would" or "have to" what?

Hate standing by helplessly....yup, I think I would, but wouldn't have
to. I could, perhaps, try to rationalise doing nothing much to help with
thoughts like:"Car drivers deserve it."

Stand by helplessly...dunno, depends so much on the circumstances.
I think I have to at least stand by, by law.

Or, are you asking if I would still try and take people out of a
potentially lethal situation? In which case, I'd like to think that I
would.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Eh?
It'll show that there's more load and that equivalent throttle settings
result in lower revs.
Therefore you would draw the conclusion that a higher throttle setting would
be required to maintain the same revs and thus more fuel would be used in
any comparable situation.

What's the logic behind your "blows .. argument out of the water"?

 

and at lower revs the engine would surely consume less fuel, not more

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Can they really drop the windows in 0.04 sec?

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Only at idle without touching the throttle settings. But of course if you actually wish to drive the car, you will need to provide
more fuel than normal to acheive the same motivation results as you did before putting more load on the system and engine.

 

Think of it another way. Say you're on a health kick (YR!) and you're peddling away on an excercise bike. You have it set at a
fairly low friction setting and are just peddling slowly. To peddle faster you apply more energy through your legs. However,
increase the load via the friction setting and you need to use more energy to maintain the same speed.

 

Er, no.

The statement was that lights waste fuel.

I have yet to see that it does.

Hammo

(...blinded by the obvious?)

 

Either/or. Do you feel that you *would* help, or that you *have to* help if
it was lethal to you?

Interesting justification.

Really? I can't understand why, unless, it was you (as in the driver) that
caused the accident, then failure to stop would be an issue.

Because, you believe it to be a "legal" requirement?

Kind regards

Hammo

 

Your alternator doesn't have a feedback that regulates how much
electrickery is produced - and therefore how much work the alternator is
doing?
---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]


'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

I have no reason to doubt it. They're not just dropped by gravity alone
although I forget just how it all happens now. There was a lot to take
in and I must admit I was somewhat amazed at the thinking that's gone
into them. A lot of current cars have such features. One that I forgot
about is an automatic fuel cutoff.

One other feature that impressed me was that if the car senses that
you're braking hard, it will apply additional force to the brakes to
stop you in the shortest possible distance.

 

No; because I adjusted the idle back up so they both matched!
(You must've snipped out that bit when you snipped out the bits about
"comparable situation")
--
Clem

PS; I just tested the three vehicles with tachos (The Brumby and TU250 are
tacholess)
Gnat's car; 1991 EFI 1.5L 4cyl
revs dropped by about 50rpm when lights on.

Michelle's car; 2004 EFI 1.5L 4cyl
revs dropped by a fair amount but then immediately climbed back to where
they were (tacho had no real calibration but it felt like a bigger drop than
gNat's car so I'd guess about 100rpm.)

1987 K75 EFI 3cyl
no noticeable change. The bike was cold and wouldn't idle real well to
begin with so I don't say that was a totally definitive test though.

 

Where'd you get that statement?
I thought he said that "headlights in daylight do nothing except waste
fuel".

If the lights are serving a purpose then the fuel isn't being wasted.

 

They do; every 40,000km the regulator automatically tells you that your
alternator has been producing too much output.
It's a Honda feature!