|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 11, 2013 15:41:04 GMT
of course. I just like to use "metric" to refer to anything furrin. ;D So "Metric" is everything which makes you need different tools, a calculator and/or a dictionary? The Rover Mini which comes with an injection engine is metric³. You need 3 sets of spanners and other tools. One standard set for most work, one imperial set for stuff they never changed and a set of bent spanners to reach certain bolts if you are not a gynaecologist. And tires are measured in inch all over the world. Rover had introduced metric tire sizes! funny - there have been cars over here that used metric tires for at least 20 years. the metric system was invented by a frenchman who wanted to make a new system where everything was divisible by 10. to accomplish that; he developed his own proprietary standards which have no convenient real world artifacts to base estimates off of.this is the real reason why so many americans reject the system. besides the fact that we would have to aither retool everything, make adaptors for everything, or use such odd size standards that it would completely eliminate the advantage of making the math easier. and the foreign = metric meme is still good honest silliness. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Feb 11, 2013 17:54:36 GMT
To be a mini mechanic, you needed the hands of a child and the strength of two gorillas. I've noticed. To change the clutch, I had to buy a special Rover clutch puller and had to use my smallest nut runner, there was no room for professional tools at all. When I feared that my nut runner would break, I stopped and called an expert if I am missing a detail or two there. He gave me the advice to put my head where I can't see the puller or clutch and laughed. So I had continued tightening the puller. Well, the brick wall next to the car had a big mark on it and the original Rover puller looked like a piece of weird art but the clutch was finally removed. I asked the professional how they do that without breaking a €40 Rover tool each time. He said that taking out the engine is cheaper since you can use real tools afterwards. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Feb 11, 2013 18:11:05 GMT
the metric system was invented by a frenchman who wanted to make a new system where everything was divisible by 10. That's pure nonsense! It's a system where everything is based on the meter and you can convert units very conviniently with simple maths or just adding or replacing symbols. It's NOT based on 10 at all. Each unit is as it is, there are no subunits. Distances for example are always measured in meter, nothing else! You can shift the decimal point using a prefix which doesn't change the unit at all. So instead of the need to write "x 1/1000 inches" or the need to come up with new names for the same unit like "mill", we simply attach a prefix. "1 km" = "1 (x1000)m" "1 mm" = "1 (x1/1000)m" That's all and as simple as it can get. There is no more "by 10" stuff there as in your units since your units are expressed with decimal numbers, too. And the Beauty is that you can convert stuff real quick: 1m³ = 1000 Liter = 1000 kg In this, there are the only exceptions you need to know since "cm" (1/100 m) is used as a base to convert between volume and dimensions as is kg (1000g) used to convert a liter water into a weight. Those are the only two confusing parts there are! Want to know the buoyancy of something in water? Measure its dimensions to get m³, then you know the buoyancy in 1000 kg by simply replacing the m³ with 1000kg. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 11, 2013 18:17:45 GMT
the metric system was invented by a frenchman who wanted to make a new system where everything was divisible by 10. That's pure nonsense! It's a system where everything is based on the meter and you can convert units very conviniently with simple maths or just adding or replacing symbols. It's NOT based on 10 at all. Each unit is as it is, there are no subunits. Distances for example are always measured in meter, nothing else! You can shift the decimal point using a prefix which doesn't change the unit at all. So instead of the need to write "x 1/1000 inches" or the need to come up with new names for the same unit like "mill", we simply attach a prefix. "1 km" = "1 (x1000)m" "1 mm" = "1 (x1/1000)m" That's all and as simple as it can get. There is no more "by 10" stuff there as in your units since your units are expressed with decimal numbers, too. And the Beauty is that you can convert stuff real quick: 1m³ = 1000 Liter = 1000 kg In this, there are the only exceptions you need to know since "cm" (1/100 m) is used as a base to convert between volume and dimensions as is kg (1000g) used to convert a liter water into a weight. Those are the only two confusing parts there are! Want to know the buoyancy of something in water? Measure its dimensions to get m³, then you know the buoyancy in 1000 kg by simply replacing the m³ with 1000kg. I'm sorry. I'm not fluent with the metric system. how is that not related to conversions being based on multiplying and dividing by 10? |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Feb 11, 2013 18:29:38 GMT
I'm sorry. I'm not fluent with the metric system. how is that not related to conversions being based on multiplying and dividing by 10? Only if you do that 3 times in a row. Instead of subunits like "miles, yards, feet, inches and mill" we simply use only one unit and don't convert, we just use a prefix to shift the point by 3 decimal places (not one which would be multiplying with 10). T = 1,000,000,000,000 G = 1,000,000,000 M = 1,000,000 k = 1,000 m = 1/1,000 µ = 1/1,000,000 n = 1/1,000,000,000 p = 1/1,000,000,000,000 f = 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 The only exception is "c" = "centi" for 1/100 which gives you a number range you can conveniently use as you use inches. Carpenters measure and think in cm (1/100m), engineers in mm (1/1000). |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 11, 2013 19:27:57 GMT
I'm sorry. I'm not fluent with the metric system. how is that not related to conversions being based on multiplying and dividing by 10? Only if you do that 3 times in a row. Instead of subunits like "miles, yards, feet, inches and mill" we simply use only one unit and don't convert, we just use a prefix to shift the point by 3 decimal places (not one which would be multiplying with 10). T = 1,000,000,000,000 G = 1,000,000,000 M = 1,000,000 k = 1,000 m = 1/1,000 µ = 1/1,000,000 n = 1/1,000,000,000 p = 1/1,000,000,000,000 f = 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 The only exception is "c" = "centi" for 1/100 which gives you a number range you can conveniently use as you use inches. Carpenters measure and think in cm (1/100m), engineers in mm (1/1000). so a decimeter is not a tenth of a meter? and a decameter is not 10 meters? now if a centimeter was 1/5280 of a meter, I would agree that metric is not based on multiples of 10; but that is not the case. the fact is that the metric system is based on making mathematic manipulation easy. that involves basing it on multiples of 10; even if using ONLY 10 as your multiplier rarely happens. that makes it great for scientific purposes; but to interpret that into a knee-jerk insistence on using it for EVERYTHING is not necessarily universally beneficial. about as universally beneficial as insisting that a racecar's tires should never experience lateral drift. (to drag us back on topic) |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Feb 11, 2013 21:50:07 GMT
now if a centimeter was 1/5280 of a meter, I would agree that metric is not based on multiples of 10; but that is not the case. Those are rarely used. If you tell people "Go 5 decameter that way" they look at you as if you are insane and don't know the distance at all. Instead, you say "Go 50 Meter that way". You usually just make sure that you don't need more than 3 digits - that's what a sliding ruler can handle and this habbit didn't change with the electronic pocket calculator. A GPS unit says "In 300 meter, turn left". If it would say "In 3 Hectometer, turn left", the owner would either throw it out of the window as fast as he can or return to the shop where he had bought it and point a gun at the shop assistant demanding his money back. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 12, 2013 7:48:40 GMT
Or just ask for it in Imperial. (Miles...)
Metric... we have sheets of plywood sold in so many millimetres because "law" states that they must be metric?....
so its XXX mm....
Run a measure up against them, and they are still 8ft by 4ft.
Strange, when we went metric, the doors on my house suddenly didnt do anything, they stayed exactly the same, and replacement doors sold all over the country fit the gap exactly.....
That gap was devised as "standard" by people with rulers that only had Inches...........
Those people knew what they were doing....
So when I replaced door frames in my house, I bought them, as the law states, in Metric, took them home, and converted them to "English", by fitting them to an Imperial measured foot an inch gap....
They fitted exactly..... (as I knew they would...)
So had I been lied to?... had selling me "Metric" fittings all been one big lie?....
YES....
Because everything, e=despite european messing about and regulation, EVERYTHING is still in feet and inches...
We just mess with europes head by putting some meaningless numbers on it and calling it "metric" just to wind them up....
We all know it will still fit a gap exactly that you measured in feet and inches.
So what have we got?... millimetre measurements you can never remember for a door that is exactly the same as when you measure it in inches?...
So, Has anything REALLY changed?... in truth, no, just the way things are sold....
They sell me screws in weight of so many grams....
Guess what?... its half a pound in real weights.
I buy Potatoes in so many kilograms bags... on my scales its two pounds near enough to cause no argument.
Same with apples... XYZ number of grammes, but thats half a pound near enough....
Milk?... its now written "Four pints" and "Six pints" CLEARLY under the who-cares-what-it-says metric thingumy-bob.......
There are more kids learning Imperial that oldies converting to Metric.
Oldies DO NOT convert to metric....
If you hear metric spoken, the next line is always "What's that in English?"
Drift?... I think we have had enough topic drift......
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Feb 12, 2013 14:43:25 GMT
That's because really old standards were adopted. Doors, plumbing, wheels, etc are still the very same size as over 100 years ago. For plumbing, the only thing which had changed is the thread and the gauge of the nuts so you can use metric spanners.
Old joke (we used pounds which were ½kg until two or three decades ago):
"I'd like two pounds of flour, please."
"That's called Kilo now!"
"Then give me two pounds of Kilo, please!"
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 12, 2013 14:54:09 GMT
and tell me. has the department of weights and measures come around and changed out all your doorframes and pipes to match standardized metric fittings for you?
|
|
|
|
Post by rory on Feb 12, 2013 15:34:01 GMT
It's funny in my USA company, the engineers design implants in metric, as imperial's just annoying. They are manufactured in imperial at some suppliers and metric at others depending on what they have. Our quality checkers insist on using imperial to check the tolerances as they're a bunch of old guys. Then marketing sell in metric as that's what we have laser etched on.
Imperial is just an annoyance I have to put up with.
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Feb 12, 2013 21:31:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 15, 2014 6:50:59 GMT
We have had this conversation before, I know, but I want to get this on its own thread, and discuss the theory to death, until we have consensus.
Drifting, is it faster.
I have always claimed that if you are on loose surface, then getting rip on a tight corner, forget it, rally style, go for whatever it takes to get round.
But on Tarmac, get a grip, literally.
The fastest way round a corner at speed is wide in , clip the apex, wide out, with all four tyres getting grip.
However, I have been told that certain oriental drift teams can corner drifting faster than I can....
I doubt it.
Their cars are set up to drift.... fine.. they may have an edge on my own family saloon....
Give me the same budget to improve my own vehicle and lets see what is faster.
Get those drift teams and Travis Pastrana or whoever you want that can do both, and see how fast they can corner, one lap of a Touring Car race track on a proper race surface.
Then one 'lap' or stage of a Rally course, one doing the drift, one trying their best to keep grip.
So I have set out my beliefs.... so why am I getting argued with?... on what circumstances may I be wrong?...
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 15, 2014 6:54:14 GMT
For discussion, "J" turns, and handbrake turns that can flip a car round in its own length at reasonably slow speed (Not enough to scratch the roof...)
Are they considered drifting?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 15, 2014 14:30:09 GMT
here are the parameters I would use:
no corners so tight that you must choose between sliding around the corner or backing and filling to make the corner.
drifting defined as the rear of the car significantly leaving the line of the corner. (I.E. a little oversteer or understeer that does not take the car significantly out of line is not "drifting" it is simply driving at the extreme edge of your grip.
other than that, try as many surfaces and radii of corners as you can get access to, as well as as many car configurations as you can.
my personal feeling, and this is expressed as simply as I can make it - not that it is in any way a simple equation.
if sheared grip * acceleration > static grip, drifting is beneficial; otherwise it is not.
to detail it out: the two extremes:
On a loose gravel rally stage: each bit of gravel only provides 1 unit of grip (sheared or static), while the car has 100 units of acceleration. if you are attempting to drive without drifting, you will only be able to apply 1 unit of your acceleration, while being willing to spin your tires gives you access to more bits of gravel, and you can apply more units of acceleration.
on a high speed racetrack: the tires and road surface provide 200 units of grip, while the car has 100 units of acceleration - but sheared grip is only 1 unit of grip.
it is kind of a difficult concept to simplify; but to try to put it in a nutshell, if your cumulative wheelspin can get more horsepower to the ground than maintaining traction can, it is beneficial.
of course that completely ignores deceleration rates and entry velocities, and rollover potential, and aerodynamic downforce, and other details like that. (case in point re aerodynamic downforce; before they started installing the safety spoilers on NASCAR cars, a car going forwards at 200 MPH put about 3 tons on its tires - a car going backwards at 200 MPH put -20 pounds on its tires.)
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 16, 2014 6:32:31 GMT
If you watch F1 or Indie car, the back end on fast tight corners tends to slide a little sideways, actually its a lot more today in F1 with the recent changes in smaller rear wing and V6 engines (Instead of V8 clunkers) that produce about a million tons of "poke" as they exit a corner.
That is drift.
That is the original drift... but its not intentional....
For me the actual defining line between a car on the very edge of control at F1 speeds and a car drifting as a display is intent.
So, I propose, (On Tarmac) If you intend to loosen the back end before you start, that is drifting, if you actually wanted it to not do that and the back to follow the front, thats racing?.......
Otherwise, if its a grip thing, and the surface is loose, in any way, and that would include fine sand blown over a coast road made of tarmac, then its rally style.
Driving rally style, I found that instruction on how to handle a powerful boat was beneficial.
As in, on cornering, sod the grip, get it chucked in hard and use the power to "Pull" you round the corner...
Think ahead, aim for where you want to be, and dont worry about where you actually are.
That is, until the scenery starts knocking on the doors....
Experience is everything, which is why rally stages change, as local knowledge can give you unbeatable advantages. (With the right vehicle of course...)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 16, 2014 13:56:36 GMT
If you watch F1 or Indie car, the back end on fast tight corners tends to slide a little sideways, actually its a lot more today in F1 with the recent changes in smaller rear wing and V6 engines (Instead of V8 clunkers) that produce about a million tons of "poke" as they exit a corner. That is drift. That is the original drift... but its not intentional.... For me the actual defining line between a car on the very edge of control at F1 speeds and a car drifting as a display is intent. So, I propose, (On Tarmac) If you intend to loosen the back end before you start, that is drifting, if you actually wanted it to not do that and the back to follow the front, thats racing?....... Otherwise, if its a grip thing, and the surface is loose, in any way, and that would include fine sand blown over a coast road made of tarmac, then its rally style. Driving rally style, I found that instruction on how to handle a powerful boat was beneficial. As in, on cornering, sod the grip, get it chucked in hard and use the power to "Pull" you round the corner... Think ahead, aim for where you want to be, and dont worry about where you actually are. That is, until the scenery starts knocking on the doors.... Experience is everything, which is why rally stages change, as local knowledge can give you unbeatable advantages. (With the right vehicle of course...) we are old. to us, drift is the difference between our cornering line if we were riding on rails, and what our actual cornering line is due to the fact that we are using all the traction we have, with only a tiny bit left over to prevent unscheduled bodywork. but the whole drift or no refers to the deliberate act of oversteering through the corner. which as I said, in a rally car on the soft stages is necessary because it gives you more total acceleration, and on a good surface with good tires is bad because it reduces your total acceleration. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 16, 2014 13:57:39 GMT
(but it reminds me of the directions I give people for handling a skid: "drive the front end where you want to go and don't let your a** end pass you.")
|
|
|
|
Post by watcher56 on May 16, 2014 15:42:32 GMT
If you need to turn the steering wheel to the right of center when turning left, you are drifting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 20, 2014 21:51:01 GMT
{Threads merged. CM}
|
|
