OT Math/Logging Joke

"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> I'd guess that the big rigs are geared just a little bit differently
> than an F150. Lot more low end torque, for example. Once you get the
> load moving and are cruising down the highway, it probably don't take
> near so much horsepower. They're not really known for their 0-60
> acceleration times neither.


At 60 mph, it takes more power to overcome the wind resistance than it does
to haul the weight. That is why they've become so much more aerodynamic in
recent years.
Ed

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 21:49:30 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> --snip--
... snip
> >
> >I just get wound up about the 5 and 6 thousand pound trucks that go
> >back and forth from home, to the cubicle, and to the mall. The ones
> >that never carry a load and never tow anything more than a typical
> >mid-size car can tow.
> >
> I'll agree here absolutely. I think part of the problem though is
> that there isn't a suitable smaller vehicle for hauling the kids,
> their friends & possible equipment around - due in part to the demise
> of station wagons.

Kind of a funny twisted irony there. The demise of the station wagon
is directly attributable to the propensity of government to extend
overarching regulations and the screaming minority of social do-gooders
in society demanding that the government "do something" about automobile
efficiency. When the original CAFE standards were written, decreeing by
fiat what "fleet" mileage for an automobile manufacturer's product line
must meet, auto manufacturers realized that continuing to produce
station wagons (which fell under the CAFE standards as automobiles)
would not be feasible and still allow producing products in their other
lines that people would want to buy and drive. Thus, they eliminated
station wagons from their product lines allowing them to meet the CAFE
standards. Since light trucks (thank goodness) did not fall under that
set of regulations, the auto manufacturers noted that people were buying
utility vehicles like Suburbans -- thus the SUV trend was born.

So, in a way, all those screaming about the "SUV problem" are actually
responsible for creating that problem by eliminating the product that
had been fulfilling that demand for years.

> Now they're starting to make smaller SUVs that are
> hopefully a bit better on gas mileage as well as rollover safety.
>
> Renata
>

In article <[email protected]>, fatheree21
@NOcomcastSPAM.net says...
>
> "B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
> in message news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 17:18:26 GMT, Igor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >With the new fuel efficiency standards, the trucks will be very, very
> > >small. Think Tonka.
> >
> > There's no reason we can't build a 30+ MPG truck _now_. It won't snap
> > your head back accelerating, but it'll get the job done.
> >
> > Barry
>
> I can think of one...no one will buy it. Except maybe Arianna Huffington.

No, not even she will buy it. Remember, when someone like Arianna H,
or Barbara S. make a statement like, "We must preserve our natural
resources" you always need to add the words "for me" to the end of the
sentence, and usually change the "we" to "you" so you get
"You must preserve our natural resources for me" This removes the
hypocrisy from these folks statements.

> Of course, it will just sit in her garage because she'll be taking a limo to
> a friend's private jet to get around.
>
> todd
>
>
>

That "big rig" is efficient only on pound/mile. On mile/gallon, which is
what transportation of humans is about, it sucks.

What we need is a good dictator to keep us efficient....

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:48:32 GMT, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, nobody ever *pulls* or *hauls* anything that might require a
> >little more power than your typical six banger or small V-8
>
>
> Again, go compare the power plant in a typical fleet-owned TT rig to
> that on a typical pickup. 'Cause we all know that the big rig dosen't
> haul much. <G>
>
> >> The same goes for cars with 0-60
> >> times under 6 seconds and top speeds of 150 MPH+, in a country with a
> >> 65 MPH speed limit.
> >
> > Don't know what part of the country you live in, but hereabouts our
> >speed limit is 75, thank-you-very-much.
>
> Big deal, so make it 75, you still don't need a vehicle with a 150 MPH
> top end.
>
> I'm simply commenting on what I see around me and what it gets used
> for. While I'm totally against laws telling folks what to do, a whole
> lot of people are being incredibly irresponsible.
>
> Barry
>

On 31-Aug-2003, B a r r y B u r k e J r . <[email protected]> wrote:

> This is progress? <G>

No, it's American. Too bad those idiots in Detroit can't get their
crap together long enough to build cars worth buying.

Tools may be better made domestic, but cars and trucks are
better designed overseas. Why? No good reason.

Mike

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:24:14 -0500, "todd"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
>in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> There's no reason we can't build a 30+ MPG truck _now_. It won't snap
>> your head back accelerating, but it'll get the job done.
>>
>> Barry
>
>I can think of one...no one will buy it.


Sure they will. Who's they? _Fleets_ for starters! <G>

Large fleets would kill for a 30+ MPG 1/2 or 3/4 ton pickup or van.
Think the phone company, meter readers, USPS, etc... Heck, UPS has
had it's vehicles custom built for years, with fuel efficiency a top
goal.

Using current hybrid technology, the vehicle could have reasonable
acceleration as well, it my simply have a limited top speed. In fact,
hybrid technology also makes things like all wheel drive, traction
control, regenerative braking, etc... simple, easy, and affordable.
Simply put one motor at each wheel. We've been doing traction
control, regenerative braking and one motor per axle in diesel
locomotives for decades!

I was quite surprised at the acceleration of a Toyota Prius during a
test drive. Electric motors can deliver much more torque than small
IC's at low RPM's.

The real reason for a v-10 or a large v-8 in a typical pickup is
purely marketing penis extension. The same goes for cars with 0-60
times under 6 seconds and top speeds of 150 MPH+, in a country with a
65 MPH speed limit. Some tractor trailers have 1/2 the horsepower of
some off-the rack pickups. The TT purchasers care much more about
fuel efficiency and less about beating the guy in the next lane to the
next traffic light than Johnny Middle-aged Homeowner.

Barry

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Teaching Math in 2000:
> A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
> His cost of production is $120.
> How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?
> ***********************
> Teaching Math in 2010:
> El hachero vende un camion carga de madero por 100 pesos. La cuesta de
> production es........
> (eh, wot's that you say?)

Heh. I'd just like to know where I'm going to be able to buy a
truckload of lumber for 100 pesos in 2010.

Cheers,
Abe

"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well if you design the vehicle such that 75 is max, that'll probobly be at
> about 6-7000 rpm. Not very efficient. Make the gearing such that you get
max
> efficiency at cruise speed (75) and top speed tends to get up there over
100.
>

People don't think of that. I tend to keep my cars for a long time and I
drive 30k a year. Both my cares turn 2000 rpm at 70 mph. I drove a
smaller, cheaper car that was turning 3000 rpm at that speed. I did not buy
it because 1000 rpm per mile on the highway adds up to a lot of engine wear.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

On 28 Aug 2003 10:04:06 -0700, Bob Boswood wrote:

> Is there any truth to this one?
> In which decade did you learn math?
> ***********************

LOL, that was a good one. I immediately forwarded that to my two uncles
who are math teachers, they'll love it.

david
--
It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have
learned English -- up to 50 words used in correct context -- no human being
has been reported to have learned dolphinese.
-- Carl Sagan


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:48:32 GMT, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Yeah, nobody ever *pulls* or *hauls* anything that might require a
>little more power than your typical six banger or small V-8

I didn't say "nobody". Of course there are folks that need that
stuff. Most of the massively powered vehicles I see tow nothing more
than a Jet Ski, snowmobile, or other small load that could be towed
with a decent V6. Some tow *nothing*, as they aren't even equipped
with a hitch. Heck my old Toyota with a 22R 4 banger would tow any of
it.

1/2 or 3/4 ton in the bed is easily moved with a reasonable motor.
I've owned (2) 250 CI equipped Chevys and one 300 CI equipped Ford,
all six cylinders, that had no problem moving their rated loads. The
Ford towed a 21' Travel Trailer.

Again, go compare the power plant in a typical fleet-owned TT rig to
that on a typical pickup. 'Cause we all know that the big rig dosen't
haul much. <G>

>> The same goes for cars with 0-60
>> times under 6 seconds and top speeds of 150 MPH+, in a country with a
>> 65 MPH speed limit.
>
> Don't know what part of the country you live in, but hereabouts our
>speed limit is 75, thank-you-very-much.

Big deal, so make it 75, you still don't need a vehicle with a 150 MPH
top end.

I'm simply commenting on what I see around me and what it gets used
for. While I'm totally against laws telling folks what to do, a whole
lot of people are being incredibly irresponsible.

Barry

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:35:33 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Some tractor trailers have 1/2 the horsepower of
>some off-the rack pickups. The TT purchasers care much more about
>fuel efficiency and less about beating the guy in the next lane to the
>next traffic light than Johnny Middle-aged Homeowner.

Mostly true, but the majority of TT rigs run between 300 and 400 HP.
My BIL drove one that had a 550 HP supercharged diesel! He didn't have
to slow down for the hills too much.

The real difference between large trucks and small trucks and cars is
the gearing. Most TT rigs have 9 to 13 forward gears. That allows you
to get a heavy load moving with a *lot* less power than it would take
with higher gears. The problem is that it also means that you have to
go up hills more slowly. While I can pull my 6,000 LB trailer just
fine with a 351 CID V8, I have to slow down a lot on hills. Personally
it doesn't matter, because I like the mileage the 351 gives me when
I'm not pulling the trailer, but there is a point where it becomes a
problem.

I drove a friend's Geo Metro a few years ago. He got about 50 mpg with
it normally. It had a 3 cyl. engine and a 6 speed trans. (IIRC). With
one person in the car it was great. But when 4 of us climbed in you
practically rowed it with the shifter. Slight hills I didn't even know
were there suddenly required a downshift and a drop in speed. There
was absolutely no way to maintain 65 in that thing with 4 people in
it.

Personally I am looking toward hybrid technologies as the fuel economy
solution. The only real problem they have is that for long, sustained
travel they can't produce the electricity to maintain speed.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 08:50:06 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I'd guess that the big rigs are geared just a little bit differently
>than an F150. Lot more low end torque, for example. Once you get the
>load moving and are cruising down the highway, it probably don't take
>near so much horsepower. They're not really known for their 0-60
>acceleration times neither.

RIGHT ON!!! My point exactly. <G>

But they are efficient for the fuel they use to haul a given load.
The Ford pickup and Chevy vans I owned with straight sixes were
similar. They had enough power to get the job done, with reasonable
use of resources.


>>Big deal, so make it 75, you still don't need a vehicle with a 150 MPH
>>top end.
>
>I can see you're not exactly a car person...

Actually I am. I'm a huge fan of motorsport. I like NASCAR stuff
for the attempted low-tech level playing field, and I enjoy the high
tech focus of Pro Rally. I live within 1 hour or so of (3) NASCAR
sanctioned short tracks, a nationally known road course, and attend
races at them regularity. I'll be at the road course (LIme Rock Park)
tomorrow for a vintage event. However, what belongs on the track
should stay on the track.

The Mini Cooper and Subaru WRX are perfect examples of cars that are
fun to drive within typical laws, while still good, reliable, and
efficient daily transportation.

I just get wound up about the 5 and 6 thousand pound trucks that go
back and forth from home, to the cubicle, and to the mall. The ones
that never carry a load and never tow anything more than a typical
mid-size car can tow.

People who use trucks for the purpose they are designed for are NOT
who I'm talking about.

Barry

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:11:30 -0700, Tim Douglass
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Our local electric company has already formed a new division selling,
>>maintaining, and fueling them. A fuel cell furnace / powerplant could
>>easily take a typical residence off the grid for good.
>
>I wouldn't mind being able to get off the grid, but since it leaves
>you dependant on another delivery system I'm not sure you really gain
>anything in terms of independence.

Think about it as if your residence were powered by oil.

You could choose your supplier via 100% competition, depending on how
involved the government gets. <G>

Also, the electric company would no longer need a distribution
network, along with the very expensive equipment and right of way that
goes with it. They would probably rather dispatch a delivery 2-3
times a year to replace it. In many places, they're still reading
meters monthly, so they're going there anyway. Those here in the
Northeast USA are currently battling over a cable in Long Island
Sound. These battles would be a thing of the past.

In some areas of the company a right of way is pennies, elsewhere it's
gold.

Barry

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:19:04 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:48:32 GMT, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, nobody ever *pulls* or *hauls* anything that might require a
>>little more power than your typical six banger or small V-8
>
>I didn't say "nobody". Of course there are folks that need that
>stuff. Most of the massively powered vehicles I see tow nothing more
>than a Jet Ski, snowmobile, or other small load that could be towed
>with a decent V6. Some tow *nothing*, as they aren't even equipped
>with a hitch. Heck my old Toyota with a 22R 4 banger would tow any of
>it.
>
>1/2 or 3/4 ton in the bed is easily moved with a reasonable motor.
>I've owned (2) 250 CI equipped Chevys and one 300 CI equipped Ford,
>all six cylinders, that had no problem moving their rated loads. The
>Ford towed a 21' Travel Trailer.
>
>Again, go compare the power plant in a typical fleet-owned TT rig to
>that on a typical pickup. 'Cause we all know that the big rig dosen't
>haul much. <G>

I'd guess that the big rigs are geared just a little bit differently
than an F150. Lot more low end torque, for example. Once you get the
load moving and are cruising down the highway, it probably don't take
near so much horsepower. They're not really known for their 0-60
acceleration times neither.
>
>>> The same goes for cars with 0-60
>>> times under 6 seconds and top speeds of 150 MPH+, in a country with a
>>> 65 MPH speed limit.
>>
>> Don't know what part of the country you live in, but hereabouts our
>>speed limit is 75, thank-you-very-much.
>
>Big deal, so make it 75, you still don't need a vehicle with a 150 MPH
>top end.

I can see you're not exactly a car person...

Renata

>
>I'm simply commenting on what I see around me and what it gets used
>for. While I'm totally against laws telling folks what to do, a whole
>lot of people are being incredibly irresponsible.
>
>Barry

(no stain for email)

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 8:17:28 -0600, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:

>Well if you design the vehicle such that 75 is max, that'll probobly be at
>about 6-7000 rpm. Not very efficient. Make the gearing such that you get max
>efficiency at cruise speed (75) and top speed tends to get up there over 100.
>

Not necessarily. At a given point the wind drag will hold the
vehicle back. A car that cruises at 75 in the 2500 RPM range, in
overdrive, will not necessarily go much faster if it dosen't have the
HP to overcome the drag.

I had a 19911.8L DOHC Mazda Protege that demonstrated this perfectly.
The car would turn about 2600 RPM @ 70 MPH, with highway mileage of
about 36-38 MPG. The top speed on that car was in the mid-90's,
PLENTY of top end. The car simply didn't have the horses to turn 6K in
overdrive.

By comparison, my company issued 2001 Cavalier LS turns about the same
R's but averages about 22 MPG. The Cavalier has better pickup than
the Mazda did, at a cost of 14-16 MPG, with no other benefits. The
Cavalier can't carry more people, it can't carry more weight, etc...
This is progress? <G>

Barry

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 17:18:26 GMT, Igor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >With the new fuel efficiency standards, the trucks will be very, very
> >small. Think Tonka.
>
> There's no reason we can't build a 30+ MPG truck _now_. It won't snap
> your head back accelerating, but it'll get the job done.
>
> Barry

I can think of one...no one will buy it. Except maybe Arianna Huffington.
Of course, it will just sit in her garage because she'll be taking a limo to
a friend's private jet to get around.

todd