Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist

On 19/10/2019 14:28, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2019 11:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/2019 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 22:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 18:15, JNugent wrote:

Gains from increased efficiency are effectively free.
Â*
Well... If you had a car 50 years ago that did 30mpg and you now
have one that does 45mpg, then looking at it your way you get 15
free miles.

That is indeed one way to look at it.

It is the way *you* are looking at it.

I haven't given your made-up scenario more than a second's thought.

Yes, but they [your links] told me nothing and it is irrelevant to
compare old with new.

Is it?

Of course it's irrelevant. Stupid to try to make it so.

You aren't factoring in the wastage.

Numbers...?

See the links I provided.

Nothing to see.

Alternatively, point out any paragraphs that you think describe how
headlamps get "free" electricity.

Reduced wastage (and a lot of electricity generated by the engine
is and has always been wasted) is effectively a cost-free gain.

Some motorikes use a shunt regulator. Cars don't.

Motorikes...

Greek?

How convenient! Nugent can now try to divert away from trying to
describe perpetual motion.

Wastage of the mechanical output of the engine has been reduced by the
move from the old generator to the more efficient alternator. It means
that in addition to, and quite separate from, all the other improvements
in efficiency and utility provided by motor vehicles today as compared
with days gone by*, more electrical power is provided by the use of even
less fuel than was the case previously.

That clearly irks you, but it is still *true* whether you like it or not.

[*When I passed my [first] driving test, not far off fifty years ago,
you were lucky to get 28 - 30 mpg out of a medium sized car. Today, my
medium sized car gets between 64 and 68 mpg without my having to strive
for it. A larger car I have had available to me over the past few years
does 52mpg easily. And yet some silly people complain that headlights
"use more fuel", despite the fact that vehicles are using less fuel then
ever before and are far more electrically efficient than they used to
be. Some people just want something to whinge about, clearly.]


In the real world the additional load of headlights on a car (especially
a modern car) would be very hard to measure, and certainly not
discernable tank to tank.

Far more fuel is wasted during the holdups caused by cyclists, not to
mention the additional pollution.

MrCheerful wrote:
On 19/10/2019 14:28, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2019 11:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/2019 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 22:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 18:15, JNugent wrote:

Gains from increased efficiency are effectively free.

Well... If you had a car 50 years ago that did 30mpg and you now
have one that does 45mpg, then looking at it your way you get 15
free miles.

That is indeed one way to look at it.

It is the way *you* are looking at it.

I haven't given your made-up scenario more than a second's thought.

Yes, but they [your links] told me nothing and it is irrelevant to
compare old with new.

Is it?

Of course it's irrelevant. Stupid to try to make it so.

You aren't factoring in the wastage.

Numbers...?

See the links I provided.

Nothing to see.

Alternatively, point out any paragraphs that you think describe how
headlamps get "free" electricity.

Reduced wastage (and a lot of electricity generated by the engine
is and has always been wasted) is effectively a cost-free gain.

Some motorikes use a shunt regulator. Cars don't.

Motorikes...

Greek?

How convenient! Nugent can now try to divert away from trying to
describe perpetual motion.

Wastage of the mechanical output of the engine has been reduced by
the move from the old generator to the more efficient alternator. It
means that in addition to, and quite separate from, all the other
improvements in efficiency and utility provided by motor vehicles
today as compared with days gone by*, more electrical power is
provided by the use of even less fuel than was the case previously.

That clearly irks you, but it is still *true* whether you like it or
not. [*When I passed my [first] driving test, not far off fifty years
ago,
you were lucky to get 28 - 30 mpg out of a medium sized car. Today,
my medium sized car gets between 64 and 68 mpg without my having to
strive for it. A larger car I have had available to me over the past
few years does 52mpg easily. And yet some silly people complain that
headlights "use more fuel", despite the fact that vehicles are using
less fuel then ever before and are far more electrically efficient
than they used to be. Some people just want something to whinge
about, clearly.]

In the real world the additional load of headlights on a car
(especially a modern car) would be very hard to measure, and
certainly not discernable tank to tank.

Far more fuel is wasted during the holdups caused by cyclists, not to
mention the additional pollution.

+1

On 19/10/2019 18:39, MrCheerful wrote:
On 19/10/2019 14:28, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2019 11:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/2019 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 22:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 18:15, JNugent wrote:

Gains from increased efficiency are effectively free.
Â*
Well... If you had a car 50 years ago that did 30mpg and you now
have one that does 45mpg, then looking at it your way you get 15
free miles.

That is indeed one way to look at it.

It is the way *you* are looking at it.

I haven't given your made-up scenario more than a second's thought.

Yes, but they [your links] told me nothing and it is irrelevant to
compare old with new.

Is it?

Of course it's irrelevant. Stupid to try to make it so.

You aren't factoring in the wastage.

Numbers...?

See the links I provided.

Nothing to see.

Alternatively, point out any paragraphs that you think describe how
headlamps get "free" electricity.

Reduced wastage (and a lot of electricity generated by the engine
is and has always been wasted) is effectively a cost-free gain.

Some motorikes use a shunt regulator. Cars don't.

Motorikes...

Greek?

How convenient! Nugent can now try to divert away from trying to
describe perpetual motion.

Wastage of the mechanical output of the engine has been reduced by the
move from the old generator to the more efficient alternator. It means
that in addition to, and quite separate from, all the other
improvements in efficiency and utility provided by motor vehicles
today as compared with days gone by*, more electrical power is
provided by the use of even less fuel than was the case previously.

That clearly irks you, but it is still *true* whether you like it or not.

[*When I passed my [first] driving test, not far off fifty years ago,
you were lucky to get 28 - 30 mpg out of a medium sized car. Today, my
medium sized car gets between 64 and 68 mpg without my having to
strive for it. A larger car I have had available to me over the past
few years does 52mpg easily. And yet some silly people complain that
headlights "use more fuel", despite the fact that vehicles are using
less fuel then ever before and are far more electrically efficient
than they used to be. Some people just want something to whinge about,
clearly.]


In the real world the additional load of headlights on a car (especially
a modern car) would be very hard to measure, and certainly not
discernable tank to tank.

The "extra load" is not discernible at all. There is a buffer in the
form of the battery. The alternator's output is more than enough to
power the electrical system and keep the battery topped up, even on
tick-over. The little red light on the dash used to come on whilst
waiting in neutral. That never happens with a modern car.

Far more fuel is wasted during the holdups caused by cyclists, not to
mention the additional pollution.

Although I didn't mention it in the previous response to the unimportant
TMS320 (it's odd how he snipped that bit!), as well as the engine being
far more efficient these days, as well as the alternator, batteries have
improved out of all recognition. A few decades ago, you needed a new one
every couple of years. A car I bought new in 2006 and disposed of in
2014 never needed a new battery and the car I bought to replace it (in
2014) has never shown the slightest sign of being any different in that
respect.

On 19/10/2019 19:49, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2019 18:39, MrCheerful wrote:

In the real world the additional load of headlights on a car
(especially a modern car) would be very hard to measure, and certainly
not discernable tank to tank.

It won't be discernable to the owner. Just as the many tiny things a car
manufacturer develops in the lab are not separately discernable.

Just because you can't discern something does not mean it does not exist.

The "extra load" is not discernible at all. There is a buffer in the
form of the battery.

Perpetual motion is impossible. There is a Law about it.

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 18:40:10 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
wrote:

MrCheerful wrote:
On 19/10/2019 14:28, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2019 11:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/2019 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 22:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 18:15, JNugent wrote:


+1

Another well-argued logical post [NOT]




--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 20/10/2019 10:12, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 18:40:10 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
wrote:

MrCheerful wrote:
On 19/10/2019 14:28, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2019 11:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/2019 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 22:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 18:15, JNugent wrote:


+1

Another well-argued logical post [NOT]


Bah, and indeed, Humbug.





Indeed.
Pounder is full of humbug.

On 19/10/2019 18:39, MrCheerful wrote:

Far more fuel is wasted during the holdups caused by cyclists, not to
mention the additional pollution.

Well, there is a trite answer to this:

Compared to cars of 50 years ago, modern cars, etc...
[courtesy J Nugent]


Alternatively:

You need to quantify it before you can state it as fact. While the
driver sitting behind the cyclist must use more fuel than if the cyclist
was not there (and will see a peak in instantaneous consumption), it
wouldn't be significant enough for the driver to notice when looking at
the journey average.

But there is a flaw in the argument. The bicycle user is also doing a
journey. If that person was to do their journey by car instead, then two
cars would be consuming and polluting. The notion falls over.

......

As a supplementary, the load of the headlamps is roughly similar to the
effect on rolling resistance of 100kg of weight in the car.

For instance, my previous car only came with a can of foam so when I put
a wheel, jack and brace in the boot, I added something like 30kg. This
would have increased rolling resistance by 3N which converts to 1 litre
per 2000 miles (and is extra to the additional KE that gets dissipated
through the brakes). I wouldn't be able to isolate that contribution
even though I keep a spreadsheet and know it is present.

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 23:03:49 GMT, TMS320 wrote:

On 19/10/2019 18:39, MrCheerful wrote:

Far more fuel is wasted during the holdups caused by cyclists, not to
mention the additional pollution.

Well, there is a trite answer to this:

Compared to cars of 50 years ago, modern cars, etc...
[courtesy J Nugent]


Alternatively:

You need to quantify it before you can state it as fact. While the
driver sitting behind the cyclist must use more fuel than if the
cyclist
was not there (and will see a peak in instantaneous consumption), it
wouldn't be significant enough for the driver to notice when looking at
the journey average.

But there is a flaw in the argument. The bicycle user is also doing a
journey. If that person was to do their journey by car instead, then
two
cars would be consuming and polluting. The notion falls over.

.....

As a supplementary, the load of the headlamps is roughly similar to the
effect on rolling resistance of 100kg of weight in the car.

For instance, my previous car only came with a can of foam so when I
put
a wheel, jack and brace in the boot, I added something like 30kg. This
would have increased rolling resistance by 3N which converts to 1 litre
per 2000 miles (and is extra to the additional KE that gets dissipated
through the brakes). I wouldn't be able to isolate that contribution
even though I keep a spreadsheet and know it is present.


Please! You're presenting a logical argument based on facts; this is a NG
for personal bickering dog-walking anecdotes and fanatical attention to
the level of fluid in screenwash bottles.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 21/10/2019 10:48, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

Please! You're presenting a logical argument based on facts;

Thank you.

It must have been the performance enhancing drugs talking that I took
for my 40 mile bike race yesterday... an all you can eat breakfast. I
completed the two stages of the race in a gruelling 3 hours 46 minutes
3.58 seconds. Give or take half an hour.

It would have been faster but, in cycling tradition, we carried our old
kitchens, televisions and car tyres to leave along the verges as a gift
to the poor people that can't afford to move out of the countryside.

this is
a NG for personal bickering dog-walking anecdotes and fanatical
attention to the level of fluid in screenwash bottles.
He keeps telling me I'm a boring ****. So the plan is to try to send him
to sleep for long enough that his little doggie has to resort to
desperation to get something to eat.