|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 7, 2014 17:48:06 GMT
Ouch, no winter tyres and no winter driving skills on that last bit probably all season tires. it was the suburban that wasn't in 4WD mode in the beginning of the footage that caught my eye. Suburban's do not all have 4WD. It's an option. Or at least it was a few years ago when I was looking at buying a used Suburban. But as stated previously, I will never own another vehicle that isn't 4WD or AWD. As for lights on, seen first, I have noticed in my own driving, that people are less likely to pull out in front of you if your lights are on. I believe that lights on makes the vehicle look closer than lights off. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 7, 2014 17:54:31 GMT
probably all season tires. it was the suburban that wasn't in 4WD mode in the beginning of the footage that caught my eye. Suburban's do not all have 4WD. It's an option. Or at least it was a few years ago when I was looking at buying a used Suburban. But as stated previously, I will never own another vehicle that isn't 4WD or AWD. As for lights on, seen first, I have noticed in my own driving, that people are less likely to pull out in front of you if your lights are on. I believe that lights on makes the vehicle look closer than lights off. in Oregon, if you want a pickup or SUV without the potential to drive the front wheels, you have to special order it from the factory. on an entire new car lot, you might fine ONE two wheel drive pickup. you won't find a 2WD SUV. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 7, 2014 18:09:02 GMT
in Oregon, if you want a pickup or SUV without the potential to drive the front wheels, you have to special order it from the factory. on an entire new car lot, you might fine ONE two wheel drive pickup. you won't find a 2WD SUV. That's probably also true here in "snow country", But when looking at the used Suburbans, I did find some that were 2WD. I ended up getting a 2003 Ford Excursion. It's build on the same chassis as the F-250. I never saw one that wasn't 4WD. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 7, 2014 18:33:04 GMT
in Oregon, if you want a pickup or SUV without the potential to drive the front wheels, you have to special order it from the factory. on an entire new car lot, you might fine ONE two wheel drive pickup. you won't find a 2WD SUV. That's probably also true here in "snow country", But when looking at the used Suburbans, I did find some that were 2WD. I ended up getting a 2003 Ford Excursion. It's build on the same chassis as the F-250. I never saw one that wasn't 4WD. yeah, most of the 2WD SUVs get sold in the southern climates. what most likely happened with the suburban is that it was the generation that had "eventualtrack" which required the front wheels to make a complete revolution before they engaged to the drivetrain. - so until you get far enough to get the front wheels to make a revolution, you don't have 4WD. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Feb 7, 2014 20:16:49 GMT
I think about 80% of finnish cars are front-wheel drive, Unless you go off-road, there is really no need to have awd for snowy/icy weather.(it is handy, but i've never needed it myself).
We learn all the driving tricks without wintertyres during driving school, so that when it really is winter, and you have REAL wintertyres under the car, you'll still be just that bit better at knowing what can happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 7, 2014 20:24:16 GMT
A conversation that would be test continued in the Random Car Chatter thread methinks, as it has nothing to do with the OP or overall idea of testing visibility in regards car safety.
As for testing this (and for that matter any other myth) there are a couple of problems.
MB have between 7-10 days to film a segment, and as far as our end of any planning is concerned it is better to assume they have only 7 days. Of this only 3 days are going to be location filming. So any testing needs to be able to be tested in the shop and within 3 days on location.
Filming requires the ability to reset and retest myths, especially in cases where they need as much data as possible in order to make a judgement call. Requiring them to film at a very particular time of day is impractical, simply because it doesn't give them enough flexibility. As Adam noted several years ago the biggest delays they have in testing anything are almost always down to having to wait for the film crew to set up and check the equipment. One camera malfunctions and they have just wasted a day of filming.
Weather is NOT predictable, or at least not to the extent that they can pick a time where they know they will have the conditions they need. Keep in mind that they schedule filming months in advance.
All of this adds up to needing to find a safe and practical way to test this where everything is under their control. That means being able to control the weather, meaning create fog and heavy rain on demand and for a driving myth such as this they would need to be able to do this over a large enough area to allow a car to be driven around normally.
While there are indoor areas that *might* be large enough to allow this, the problem is that you'd be asking people to drive within an enclosed area in conditions of poor visibility. That is just begging for an accident.
They *might* be able to use a modified version of the rig we came up with for the 'Razzle Dazzle' myth. There I came up with the idea of mimicking what a UBoat commander would see though a periscope though the use of filters on a camera or the screen on which the image is displayed. However doing this for an entire car would be considerably more expensive, complex and might not really duplicate conditions accurately enough to be useful.
This type of rig would also suffer from the problem of simply not looking interesting on screen. What we'd really want to see is 'real' fog or heavy rain so we can judge how visible a car is in such conditions. But using filters means we would just be looking at special effects.
Tests using RC cars may well be viable, as their small size should allow MB to find an indoor area in which they can create the required conditions. But, again, this would suffer from not being all that interesting as we would not be getting a full size test; that is a test using full sized cars.
It is the large/full scale testing that is the problem that would need to be overcome. And overcome in such a way that they would not need to pray for the weather conditions they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 7, 2014 20:47:51 GMT
you are correct that this would make poor mythbusters TV. in reality, the best demonstration would be to just set up a camera in an area that has significant fluctuations in bad weather, and film a couple of weeks of raw footage. then clip it down to cars approaching in bad visibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 7, 2014 20:50:55 GMT
I don't see where doing a full size test would be any problem at all. Just set up a roadside camera during the weather conditions you wish to test under and monitor traffic. I'm sure you will find vehicles with both lights on and lights off. Just observe which are easier to see and how far away you can first see them. In fact, I'm sure there is plenty of traffic cam video already available to analyze. The only problem is how you can make it interesting TV.
But if the Mythbusters can do a segment on moss growing on a rock, they should have little problem making traffic video interesting.
EDIT: TLW beat me to the post, but same idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 7, 2014 21:39:17 GMT
See my comments about predicting the weather above.
Such a test would be very time consuming, both to film (remember they will have to get someone to check the camera every day and download the footage) and to edit. In the latter case someone is going to have to sit there and watch footage, pick out the 'best' parts and then send them on...where they will have to be watched and edited again.
It would also divorce the cast from the entire segment, and prevent them from taking an active part in testing.
Using existing road side cameras would not really be an option. First because of the complexities in getting the footage, then in getting permission to use said footage and last of all roadside cameras don't film at anything close to the same resolution as TV cameras do. So the footage would look truly awful on screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 8, 2014 0:41:30 GMT
See my comments about predicting the weather above. Such a test would be very time consuming, both to film (remember they will have to get someone to check the camera every day and download the footage) and to edit. In the latter case someone is going to have to sit there and watch footage, pick out the 'best' parts and then send them on...where they will have to be watched and edited again. It would also divorce the cast from the entire segment, and prevent them from taking an active part in testing. Using existing road side cameras would not really be an option. First because of the complexities in getting the footage, then in getting permission to use said footage and last of all roadside cameras don't film at anything close to the same resolution as TV cameras do. So the footage would look truly awful on screen. they could double it up with the myth about being able to zoom in on a credit card number on a security camera. yes, we get it - they aren't likely to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 8, 2014 2:38:20 GMT
Actually I think this is an idea that they might consider...if we could figure out a practical way to test it so that we get good visuals for TV and definitive results. (In both cases being able to test this so that the viewers can see things for themselves)
Wait a second...*muses*
Is this the sort of idea that they might be able to test using Go-carts in a warehouse? They might be able to create a painted body over the basic cart, or failing that maybe attempt to drive around a course that is set out using 'cars' of different colours for different sections.
Rain might be beyond them, not because they couldn't create a suitable rig but because of the size of the required rig and the amount of water they'd need. But there ARE special effects techniques that would allow them to create fog of any thickness required indoors.
Carts would be large enough to look reasonably impressive, while being small and light enough that even if they had an accident damage should be minimal and the risk to life and limb even less, since they would be able to make barriers that could stop a cart.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 8, 2014 5:02:13 GMT
Actually I think this is an idea that they might consider...if we could figure out a practical way to test it so that we get good visuals for TV and definitive results. (In both cases being able to test this so that the viewers can see things for themselves) Wait a second...*muses* Is this the sort of idea that they might be able to test using Go-carts in a warehouse? They might be able to create a painted body over the basic cart, or failing that maybe attempt to drive around a course that is set out using 'cars' of different colours for different sections. Rain might be beyond them, not because they couldn't create a suitable rig but because of the size of the required rig and the amount of water they'd need. But there ARE special effects techniques that would allow them to create fog of any thickness required indoors. Carts would be large enough to look reasonably impressive, while being small and light enough that even if they had an accident damage should be minimal and the risk to life and limb even less, since they would be able to make barriers that could stop a cart. Thoughts? I think they used an indoor cart arena before. that would pretty much give them everything they need for accident resistance. maybe they could vacuum form shells to litter the track with, and then add or not add various lights to them and let their test subjects run the track at a set speed with an on car camera. that would be more dynamic than having the cart approach the camera with different lighting configurations. they can also dress "pedestrians" in different fashions and use headlights on the cart, to demonstrate that visibility wear really is more visible than hide in the dark colors. doing everything with lightweight shells would let them plow into the shell with minimal harm. wonder how you would simulate rain on a cart...maybe a bead curtain or something to simulate the visibility restriction. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 8, 2014 16:57:51 GMT
Off the top of my head the usual way they simulate fog is to use cooking oil. So this wouldn't really be a practical technique to use in a working business simply due to the time and cost of cleaning up afterwards. But they could do this type of testing in, say, an old hanger or warehouse. Both should give them enough room, crash barriers would be time consuming to set up but be simple as all they'd need is a lot of old tires. And I'd guess that they might be able to borrow them from a local scrapyard for a small price.
That would basically just mean that they need a cart or two, which they might be able to borrow if they can prove they are not going to do any damage to it. Failing that buying an old cart may be practical, the prices I've seen on Ebay seem to be around £350 ($420 at a rough estimate) for a basic second hand cart (excluding delivery/transport costs). So it might be practical for them to buy a pair of carts, which they could then do anything they wanted to without having to worry. Plus they would be small enough to store for future myths, if nothing else it would mean that they would be getting their hands on a small engine that may come in useful. And of course one of the cast might even be tempted to put in an offer for them after testing.
I'm not sure that there is a viable way to simulate rain without, well, rain. The kind of rig for this is very simple, MB have made such rigs at least twice for rain myths. The problem is in the size needed here and the amount of water they'd have to pump through the system in order to cover the entire track. If they are using an old building that has/had a sprinkler system installed it is possible that they *might* be able to use that. But even so it would be a very expensive and time consuming build.
You could simulate rain on a windshield easily enough. All you need is a small sprinkler system that sprays directly onto the windshield. However this would not simulate the optical effects heavy rain creates as it falls on a road, so would be of questionable value at best.
Incidentally snow is also something that could be tested. There are various ways Hollywood creates fake snow, and this can be tailored to give everything from a light dusting to a full on blizzard.
Like fake fog the equipment needed would probably be expensive, but MB would be more than qualified to create their own if they had to. And failing that might be able to get their hands on professional equipment through their contacts in the special effects industry. In fact they are perfectly placed to explain how such equipment works, and it might be interesting to remind viewers that they really do come from a special effects background by showing them working with devices that are used for films.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 8, 2014 17:14:12 GMT
Off the top of my head the usual way they simulate fog is to use cooking oil. So this wouldn't really be a practical technique to use in a working business simply due to the time and cost of cleaning up afterwards. But they could do this type of testing in, say, an old hanger or warehouse. Both should give them enough room, crash barriers would be time consuming to set up but be simple as all they'd need is a lot of old tires. And I'd guess that they might be able to borrow them from a local scrapyard for a small price. That would basically just mean that they need a cart or two, which they might be able to borrow if they can prove they are not going to do any damage to it. Failing that buying an old cart may be practical, the prices I've seen on Ebay seem to be around £350 ($420 at a rough estimate) for a basic second hand cart (excluding delivery/transport costs). So it might be practical for them to buy a pair of carts, which they could then do anything they wanted to without having to worry. Plus they would be small enough to store for future myths, if nothing else it would mean that they would be getting their hands on a small engine that may come in useful. And of course one of the cast might even be tempted to put in an offer for them after testing. I'm not sure that there is a viable way to simulate rain without, well, rain. The kind of rig for this is very simple, MB have made such rigs at least twice for rain myths. The problem is in the size needed here and the amount of water they'd have to pump through the system in order to cover the entire track. If they are using an old building that has/had a sprinkler system installed it is possible that they *might* be able to use that. But even so it would be a very expensive and time consuming build. You could simulate rain on a windshield easily enough. All you need is a small sprinkler system that sprays directly onto the windshield. However this would not simulate the optical effects heavy rain creates as it falls on a road, so would be of questionable value at best. Incidentally snow is also something that could be tested. There are various ways Hollywood creates fake snow, and this can be tailored to give everything from a light dusting to a full on blizzard. Like fake fog the equipment needed would probably be expensive, but MB would be more than qualified to create their own if they had to. And failing that might be able to get their hands on professional equipment through their contacts in the special effects industry. In fact they are perfectly placed to explain how such equipment works, and it might be interesting to remind viewers that they really do come from a special effects background by showing them working with devices that are used for films. there are two artificial fog methods: CO2 (dry ice) and mineral oil - the CO2 fog would be better for this particular application, as it doesn't smell and taste obnoxious; and tending to hang low to the ground is no disadvantage. plus it would be pleasant to film in the summer. however, mineral oil smoke machines do not leave an oily residue unless you are really overdoing it. they disperse the oil so finely that most of it goes out the ventilation (natural or artificial) rather than precipitating. (by which I mean we really overdo it in the training tower, and while we have smoke coming out of the storm drains, we don't get any residue in the tower) |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 8, 2014 17:23:04 GMT
CO2 might not be practical, certainly not if you are trying to duplicate very thick fog. Since you'd be asphyxiating the cast.
Still there are various ways to duplicate fog, and the MB will either have enough knowledge to know what technique is best suited for what they have to do. Or they will certainly know who to call to get that information. I'm guessing it would take them about 10 minutes to get the information they need and decide if this is practical for the show.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 8, 2014 18:04:19 GMT
CO2 might not be practical, certainly not if you are trying to duplicate very thick fog. Since you'd be asphyxiating the cast. Still there are various ways to duplicate fog, and the MB will either have enough knowledge to know what technique is best suited for what they have to do. Or they will certainly know who to call to get that information. I'm guessing it would take them about 10 minutes to get the information they need and decide if this is practical for the show. CO2 fog machines build very dense fog without getting the CO2 saturation high enough to cause problems. (unless you are doing something stupid like huffing directly off the outlet) and in fact, they probably have BOTH types of fog machine sitting on the shelf. by which I mean to say - I don't believe manufacturing fog will even require them to scratch their heads. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 8, 2014 20:34:57 GMT
The CO2 system is used in large areas, and isn't intended to fill the entire space with fog. (In the above case the amount of CO2 isn't going to come close to raising the CO2 levels in that space high enough to be a problem.)
I doubt that M5 has a fog machine sitting around. But they would certainly be up to making one or failing that they should have enough connections in the industry to allow them to get access to one without any problems. (It would probably be easier to borrow one that build one)
Either way, this is the sort of thing where their experience and connections would allow them to decide on the right type of machine to use, and if it would be better to borrow rather than build such a machine. I'm thinking that the oil-based machine would be considered the better option, if only because it would probably be cheaper to run and allow them to fill the entire space with 'fog' without any danger to the cast and crew.
As far as I can tell it seems that they are not often called on to use their special effects experiences to create literal special effects on the show. So this might be an interesting change of pace for them in some regards, and certainly one in which they would not really need to call in outside experts to help them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2014 2:22:27 GMT
The CO2 system is used in large areas, and isn't intended to fill the entire space with fog. (In the above case the amount of CO2 isn't going to come close to raising the CO2 levels in that space high enough to be a problem.) I doubt that M5 has a fog machine sitting around. But they would certainly be up to making one or failing that they should have enough connections in the industry to allow them to get access to one without any problems. (It would probably be easier to borrow one that build one) Either way, this is the sort of thing where their experience and connections would allow them to decide on the right type of machine to use, and if it would be better to borrow rather than build such a machine. I'm thinking that the oil-based machine would be considered the better option, if only because it would probably be cheaper to run and allow them to fill the entire space with 'fog' without any danger to the cast and crew. As far as I can tell it seems that they are not often called on to use their special effects experiences to create literal special effects on the show. So this might be an interesting change of pace for them in some regards, and certainly one in which they would not really need to call in outside experts to help them out. well, you may be right, because they do lean more towards building things than creating environments - but they may still have fog machines to use in the things they build. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 9, 2014 13:56:24 GMT
When your tyres start to spin, stop.
Thats the simple answer.
Spinning tyres are not gripping anything, spinning them more is just a waste of time....
Stop, Start again SLOWLY, and just crawl along at slow speed.
Or dont go out....
I have to ask the Mindset of those who "I HAVE to get to work", there is 2ft of snow, its still snowing hard, the roads are almost impassible, the conditions are steadily getting worse, you are in danger, yet its that important?...
Go Home, and STAY THERE....
Back on topic.
I can see almost immediate chance of testing for poor visibility... it must start to get dark at some point where you live... unless you are in the Arctic circle?...
So pointing a camera along a road and spotting when you see a vehicle, then noting lights on or off, thats part of the test done.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Feb 10, 2014 0:36:50 GMT
Here is a possible testing method: First, you need some sort of simulation. Either a Virtual reality setup, or s very large closed track. Have cars coming in the opposite lane and direction of the test car. Have a button on the dash that the driver would hit as soon as they see the oncoming car. Test the average time before passing for both cars with and without headlights. 0rder would be randomized with 15-20 of each.
A VR setup would be easy to incorporate simulated fog into the reality. A real life test tract could be impractical to do fog over the whole track. You could do fog over part so that you have a simulated daylight run and a simulated fog run on the same circuit. With a VR setup, you could also easily calculate the distance between the two cars when they are acknowledged.
Aren't there a number of high end driving simulators in the california area?
|
|
