La Flamme Rouge **off topic discussion**

LollipopJimmy

Thats lovely, some good people out there.

I ordered a wahoo elemnt bolt months ago, first arrived dead, wouldn't power on then I sent ot back and eventually they sent a new one which never arrived so got a refund and decided to buy from my lbs, they don't do wahoo so its back to Garmin, got a 530. I was curious to see what the wahoo was like

silverharp

https://twitter.com/UndergroundSilk/status/1339575879232532481

tomasrojo

Strong Superwheel vibe:
https://twitter.com/chadmccullough/status/1339611755199275010

Thargor

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/1339764423431311360

Thargor

silverharp wrote: »

https://twitter.com/UndergroundSilk/status/1339575879232532481

Thats unbelievable, wonder what can be salvaged from them or will it all be buried?

Thargor

https://twitter.com/Hackneycyclist/status/1339675015466409985

silverharp

Thargor wrote: »

Thats unbelievable, wonder what can be salvaged from them or will it all be buried?

no idea, a pity someone did find a way of buying them up cheap and using them somewhere else especially the electric ones

Wildly Boaring

Thargor wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/1339764423431311360

Ok but some of that is balderdash.
If the majority of energy is lost to engine losses then it's not really lost. It's moving the car.

Who in the hell spends 1/5 of their time looking for parking.
I drive about 20 hours a week.
I spend five mins in the week looking for parking.
This survey purely city based or were us mulchies included?

magicbastarder

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Ok but some of that is balderdash.
If the majority of energy is lost to engine losses then it's not really lost. It's moving the car.

I think that was already accounted for (the twelve to one weight ratio mentioned). Engine losses basically means engine inefficiency. That energy is actually just lost to heat/friction etc.

Wishbone Ash

What does he mean by "86% of the fuel never reaches the wheels"? Why would fuel be going to the wheels?

Weepsie

I took it to mean, that fuel is being used to heat cars, air conditioning, electric windows, lights, etc. but the number seems way too high and it's poorly phrased

cletus

It's talking about the efficiency of the engine to use the fuel it burns. The reality is petrol engines are only about 25-30% efficient. In other words, of the total amount of energy (100%) released by burning petrol in a combustion engine, just over a quarter of that energy is utilised, the rest is lost as heat etc I think the figure of 86% might be a bit high, but I'm sure it can be proved if you select for engine size, whether engine is at operating temp etc.

Diesel engines are more efficient once they are up to temp

Weepsie

You can tell which of the last 2 posters has a clue about internal combustion engines and which one can barely get a car started

Thud

thinking about it in watts per kg terms a half tonne engine is going to need a lot of watts to move that half tonne before it can move the wheels

Wishbone Ash

Reminds me of when James May maxed the Bugatti Veyron on Top Gear. He said something like that it will get to 150mph using 200bhp but to get to 250mph requires 900bhp as the power required to push a hole through the air increases expotentially.

crosstownk

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Reminds me of when James May maxed the Bugatti Veyron on Top Gear. He said something like that it will get to 150mph using 200bhp but to get to 250mph requires 900bhp as the power required to push a hole through the air increases expotentially.

Past the point of diminishing returns.

Herself and I have been playing spot the Ford Ranger over the least few days. Have they suddenly become cool or something???? I'm likely seeing the same ones on my travels but yesterday I spotted 5 unique ones while out for a walk with my eldest.

Herself probably saw a few of the same ones cycling to work and her count was 3.

Before this week I couldn't tell you the last time I saw one but now seeing them daily

magicbastarder

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Who in the hell spends 1/5 of their time looking for parking.

how do you define 'looking for parking'?
i drove into dublin city centre last night. probably the first time in two years. dublin 9 to the car park in stephen's green took i think an hour and ten minutes. you could argue that the whole journey could be classified as 'looking for parking', or you could go the other extreme and claim that it was only once we'd entered the car park, that three minutes was the only time spent 'looking for parking'.

i'd argue that the latter is more nonsensical than the former.

cletus

magicbastarder wrote: »

how do you define 'looking for parking'?
i drove into dublin city centre last night. probably the first time in two years. dublin 9 to the car park in stephen's green took i think an hour and ten minutes. you could argue that the whole journey could be classified as 'looking for parking', or you could go the other extreme and claim that it was only once we'd entered the car park, that three minutes was the only time spent 'looking for parking'.

i'd argue that the latter is more nonsensical than the former.

If we take the former, then 100% of all journeys are "looking for parking"

It's quite a city-centric point of view. I neither work nor live in a city. My daily commute involves no "looking for parking" because there's a car park with ample spaces at my work

magicbastarder

yep, it all comes down to your definition.
for me, going *into* the city, the bus would automatically be my first choice, so the fact i took the car makes it easier to define the journey as more heavily oriented as 'looking to park'.
i'd occasionally skirt the city centre in the car while heading to sandymount to visit friends and parking is much less of a factor.

but i'd agree that if you define 'looking for parking' as 'i've pretty much reached my destination, and now the main use of time is circling for a spot', a claim of 20% is probably nuts.

eeeee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Herself and I have been playing spot the Ford Ranger over the least few days. Have they suddenly become cool or something???? I'm likely seeing the same ones on my travels but yesterday I spotted 5 unique ones while out for a walk with my eldest.

Herself probably saw a few of the same ones cycling to work and her count was 3.

Before this week I couldn't tell you the last time I saw one but now seeing them daily

There are a load of them about. Must be doing a savage pcp or commercial offer.
Saw a 90's hilux behind a new ranger and the ranger was almost double the size of the hilux. And the same length in the back pretty much!

The ranger is a ridiculously massive car. Very American.

cletus

Weepsie wrote: »

I took it to mean, that fuel is being used to heat cars, air conditioning, electric windows, lights, etc. but the number seems way too high and it's poorly phrased

As an aside, once the engine is running, a belt system runs the alternator, which converts mechanical energy into AC current. That is what powers the electrical components of the car.

The (non air conditioned) heat is generated by directing the water used to cool the engine through a heater matrix or core, which can then be controlled on your dash

magicbastarder

eeeee wrote: »

Saw a 90's hilux behind a new ranger and the ranger was almost double the size of the hilux. And the same length in the back pretty much!

there was a comparison doing the rounds on twitter a week or two ago (not going to be able to find it now) of a 1980s american half ton truck and a modern one. it's nuts, looks like a much bigger relative leap in size than from the original mini to the modern one.

magicbastarder

i was getting confused as to what a 'mild hybrid' is, a term i think i was hearing most in hyundai ads, so i had to google it.
it's a car with a stop/start system to cut out idling while stationary. which is a comical abuse of language. it's not a hybrid in any sense.

cletus

magicbastarder wrote: »

i was getting confused as to what a 'mild hybrid' is, a term i think i was hearing most in hyundai ads, so i had to google it.
it's a car with a stop/start system to cut out idling while stationary. which is a comical abuse of language. it's not a hybrid in any sense.

That's what is technically known as "marketing wånk"

Idleater

magicbastarder wrote: »

which is a comical abuse of language. it's not a hybrid in any sense.

Mine (Mazda) has brake regeneration an part of it's "mild" hybrid. A bigger battery too, though not Prius like.

crosstownk

cletus wrote: »

That's what is technically known as "marketing wånk"

Yes it's a marketing term but there is some small truth to it.

The engine stops but a battery keeps all other essential systems running* while the engine stopped. To that extent, it is mild/micro/almost/just about hybrid.

But that all falls down if you do short journeys which prevent the battery from having sufficient charge to do what the marketing jargon implied.

Still, all those stopped engines mean less fumes for cyclists and pedestrians to inhale in city or built up areas.

*not if you have the air conditioning on full front screen demist, if you release your seat belt or open a door.

magicbastarder

crosstownk wrote: »

The engine stops but a battery keeps all other essential systems running* while the engine stopped. To that extent, it is mild/micro/almost/just about hybrid.

all that's doing is automating what any driver can do anyway. you can stop the engine at lights and keep the electrical systems on in any (most?) cars anyway.

any normal intepretation of the word 'hybrid' would mean hybrid *drive*, i would suspect/argue.

crosstownk

magicbastarder wrote: »

all that's doing is automating what any driver can do anyway. you can stop the engine at lights and keep the electrical systems on in any (most?) cars anyway.

any normal intepretation of the word 'hybrid' would mean hybrid *drive*, i would suspect/argue.

Yes and no. In a micro hybrid the battery charge state is monitored by an ECU to ensure that the electrical demand can be met with the engine stopped. If the battery condition deteriorates while stopped the ECU will start the engine. A driver would not be aware of such a deterioration. Additionally, a micro hybrid will employ a large capacitor to assist with restarts to prevent repeated sudden drains on the battery which may interrupt supply elsewhere in the vehicle - with so many ECUs in today's cars, a stable current supply is vital. In a micro hybrid both the battery and starter are uprated to deal with repeated restarts. Some manufacturers employ a reversible alternator to restart the engine rather than use the starter.

So it is hybrid in the sense that the vehicle looks after itself while supporting relevant systems while the engine is stopped - this is not the popular understanding of hybrid where it is assumed to mean that electricity powers motion.

To market such a vehicle as any kind of hybrid is bordering on misleading. The manufacturer that I work for market these vehicles as 'Stop/Start'. Micro hybrid was a training term used ten years ago.

magicbastarder

crosstownk wrote: »

To market such a vehicle as any kind of hybrid is bordering on misleading.

i would not use the word 'bordering'.
sure, we can use a different term to describe the functionality the car delivers that a 'dumb' car does not; it manages the use of the ICE more intelligently. but there's no grey area - the only thing that drives the wheels in such a car is the ICE; so i cannot see how in any sensible way it could be termed a hybrid.

i'm not denying that the term is in widespread use or anything; i just think it's an incorrect usage. getting back to what you mention is the popular understanding of hybrid. cars were being marketed and sold with this functionality for years before i heard them being described as 'mild hybrids' so it seems to just be marketing to paper over the fact that they're basically just traditional cars with a bit of intelligence.