In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:15:08 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> > The Tilia has not seen the light of day for a couple of years now.
>
> I guess that means you don't use it. Why did you give it up?

Pain in the ass and expensive to use. I generally don't over-shop any
more for the most part. Meal planning. :-)

I only keep it in case I end up on a successful feral hog hunting trip.
I'll need to Tilia excess sausage.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:18:55 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> > Why not?
> > Have you watched the crash videos?
>
> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.

With a seat belt and an air bag, I'd rather be inside of one of those
than a car that crushed me to death. :-(
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:28:21 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> > As for the Smart cars..... I have seen the crash test videos and it is
> > amazing how well they stand up to high speed crashes. They don't seem to
> > have the energy absorbing crinkling that some cars have, but I don't
> > think you need to worry about it imploding on impact.
>
> If you want to go for distance on the rebound, be my guest. I'll
> stick with heavier cars for freeway driving. If all the other cars on
> the road were just as small, I'd feel differently - but they aren't.

That is indeed why many steer clear of them. (pun intended <g>) I still
drive my Chevy small pickup truck, but due to rising fuel prices, I'm
reconsidering. Right now I simply cannot yet afford to make car
payments. The truck is long paid for and gets 23 mpg.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:11:33 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

> Pain in the ass and expensive to use. I generally don't over-shop any
> more for the most part. Meal planning. :-)
>
Thanks, I suspected it would be expensive to run and I don't over shop
either. I am one of the few people who actually enjoys grocery
shopping. What did you mean by pain in the ass? Heavy, hard to
change the rolls?

> I only keep it in case I end up on a successful feral hog hunting trip.
> I'll need to Tilia excess sausage.

I see.


--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:11:33 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> > Pain in the ass and expensive to use. I generally don't over-shop any
> > more for the most part. Meal planning. :-)
> >
> Thanks, I suspected it would be expensive to run and I don't over shop
> either. I am one of the few people who actually enjoys grocery
> shopping. What did you mean by pain in the ass? Heavy, hard to
> change the rolls?

It is tricky with liquids.
Best to pre-freeze them. The bags are still way over-priced and things
like shrimp keep them from holding a vacuum. The shrimp shells puncture
the bags unless you pre-wrap them.

I also enjoy grocery shopping. Probably too much. <g>

>
> > I only keep it in case I end up on a successful feral hog hunting trip.
> > I'll need to Tilia excess sausage.
>
> I see.

I also share sausage with the relatives. :-)
Two growing boys...
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

On 23/06/2010 8:18 AM, Omelet wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:43:52 -0400, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Two friends have them. The interesting part is how roomy they are. I
>>> have driven one of them frequently. You get some interesting reactions
>>> when you invite people to sit in it after they walk over and announce
>>> "it is so small". One was a guy who had to be 6'5" and way over 200 lbs.
>>> I pulled into a parking space and he struck up a conversation after he
>>> got out of a mammoth SUV and declared he needed the huge truck because
>>> he couldn't fit in anything else. He couldn't believe it when he sat in
>>> the drivers seat.
>>
>> I think they are fine for city driving, but there's no way they are
>> safe at high speeds on the highway.
>
> Why not?
> Have you watched the crash videos?

That's when you hit a stationary object at relatively low speeds. Try
hitting a vehicle with 3 times the mass coming at you a 60 mph while you
are also doing 60 mph and you may tell a very different tale. That's a
closing speed of 120 mph. Since the vehicle you hit is of greater mass,
it's forces will push you backwards. Scary stuff!

Those vehicles are okay if all other vehicles on the road are the same
size! In the US, that's never going to be the case as long as US
citizens continue their love affair with "big iron".

Krypsis

In article >,
Krypsis > wrote:

> > Sounds kinda weird to me. My current vehicle is a Chevy S-10. 1998 and
> > has yet to have any real engine issues. I use pure synthetic oil in it.
>
> Run it without a decent quality inhibitor in the cooling system and
> within 5 years you'll have an alloy cylinder head that's corroded through!
>
> Krypsis

Okay, please educate me... This truck is now 12 years old and is still
running well. What did I miss please?

Other than a manifold leak and a non-functioning AC system (and a couple
of minor dents), the truck is still running ok with a good mpg rating. I
do get it commercially serviced at Penzoil.

I bought it new in 1998.

Advice?

It has 150K+ on the odometer. I'd like to at least double that. ;-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On 6/22/2010 6:45 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:18:55 -0500, >
> wrote:
>
>> Why not?
>> Have you watched the crash videos?
>
> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
>

Quite survivable with the air bags. That car has to be one of the most
tested vehicles just to demonstrate how well it protects the occupants
in a crash.

On 6/22/2010 6:18 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>>> I've been looking at "smart cars". I've talked to a few owners and they
>>> are quite happy with them!
>>> They are tiny, but well built with a racing-type crash cage built into
>>> the body:
>>>
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHpUO-S0i8>
>>>
>>> Survivable, if you wear your seatbelt and don't disable the air bag.<g>
>>>
>>> Prices on them are very affordable too.
>>
>> Two friends have them. The interesting part is how roomy they are. I
>> have driven one of them frequently. You get some interesting reactions
>> when you invite people to sit in it after they walk over and announce
>> "it is so small". One was a guy who had to be 6'5" and way over 200 lbs.
>> I pulled into a parking space and he struck up a conversation after he
>> got out of a mammoth SUV and declared he needed the huge truck because
>> he couldn't fit in anything else. He couldn't believe it when he sat in
>> the drivers seat.
>>
>> One of my friends who has one has a neighbor with a prosthetic leg. He
>> also has a truck because he says he has difficulty getting in/out of
>> cars. He couldn't believe it after my friend invited him to try the
>> Smartcar.
>
> How cool is that? They looked pretty roomy to me when I looked into the
> front area.
>
>>
>> Also we live in a area where we get heavy snow. The engine is rear
>> mounted and they perform really well in snow. Really debunks the idea
>> the idea that you have to have a fluffed up 4WD truck.
>
> Smart engineering. I'm guessing the weight of the engine helps with
> ballast. Rear wheel drive I presume? I'd like to see them come in 4
> wheel.
>

Don't need it. After you drive one in snow you can see why.

Actually they drive a lot like the old VW Beetles in snow. And since
they have a liquid cooled engine you get great defrosting and heating
unlike the Beetle.

>>
>> Why is disappointing is all of the advertising lately from Government
>> Motors on why we need to buy fluffed up trucks.
>
> That's to sell all those that have been made!

But unfortunately some are new models.

> And not hurt oil stocks...

In article >,
Krypsis > wrote:

> On 23/06/2010 8:18 AM, Omelet wrote:
> > In >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:43:52 -0400, >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Two friends have them. The interesting part is how roomy they are. I
> >>> have driven one of them frequently. You get some interesting reactions
> >>> when you invite people to sit in it after they walk over and announce
> >>> "it is so small". One was a guy who had to be 6'5" and way over 200 lbs.
> >>> I pulled into a parking space and he struck up a conversation after he
> >>> got out of a mammoth SUV and declared he needed the huge truck because
> >>> he couldn't fit in anything else. He couldn't believe it when he sat in
> >>> the drivers seat.
> >>
> >> I think they are fine for city driving, but there's no way they are
> >> safe at high speeds on the highway.
> >
> > Why not?
> > Have you watched the crash videos?
>
> That's when you hit a stationary object at relatively low speeds. Try
> hitting a vehicle with 3 times the mass coming at you a 60 mph while you
> are also doing 60 mph and you may tell a very different tale. That's a
> closing speed of 120 mph. Since the vehicle you hit is of greater mass,
> it's forces will push you backwards. Scary stuff!

Head on collisions are indeed an whole 'nuther class... but will you
fare any better in a modern SUV?

>
> Those vehicles are okay if all other vehicles on the road are the same
> size! In the US, that's never going to be the case as long as US
> citizens continue their love affair with "big iron".
>
> Krypsis

I hear you.

But I still want one. :-) I feel I'd fare better in a crash cage made
for racing cars than a fold up vehicle.

But that's just me. <g>
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
George > wrote:

> On 6/22/2010 6:45 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:18:55 -0500, >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Why not?
> >> Have you watched the crash videos?
> >
> > Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
> > bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
> > *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
> >
>
> Quite survivable with the air bags. That car has to be one of the most
> tested vehicles just to demonstrate how well it protects the occupants
> in a crash.

I think they also have side air bags? Or am I mistaken?
I can't see how the car that was "destroyed" would be more survivable.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
George > wrote:

> >> Also we live in a area where we get heavy snow. The engine is rear
> >> mounted and they perform really well in snow. Really debunks the idea
> >> the idea that you have to have a fluffed up 4WD truck.
> >
> > Smart engineering. I'm guessing the weight of the engine helps with
> > ballast. Rear wheel drive I presume? I'd like to see them come in 4
> > wheel.
> >
>
> Don't need it. After you drive one in snow you can see why.
>
> Actually they drive a lot like the old VW Beetles in snow. And since
> they have a liquid cooled engine you get great defrosting and heating
> unlike the Beetle.

<lol> I remember as a small child that the old VW Beetle that mom drove
handled the best in deep snow!
>
> >>
> >> Why is disappointing is all of the advertising lately from Government
> >> Motors on why we need to buy fluffed up trucks.
> >
> > That's to sell all those that have been made!
>
> But unfortunately some are new models.

Which are worse, or better?
And why?

Just asking for educational purposes. I am no car expert and do not
claim to be. :-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On 23/06/2010 11:06 AM, Omelet wrote:
> In .au>,
> > wrote:
>
>>> Sounds kinda weird to me. My current vehicle is a Chevy S-10. 1998 and
>>> has yet to have any real engine issues. I use pure synthetic oil in it.
>>
>> Run it without a decent quality inhibitor in the cooling system and
>> within 5 years you'll have an alloy cylinder head that's corroded through!
>>
>> Krypsis
>
> Okay, please educate me... This truck is now 12 years old and is still
> running well. What did I miss please?

Do you service it yourself?
>
> Other than a manifold leak and a non-functioning AC system (and a couple
> of minor dents), the truck is still running ok with a good mpg rating. I
> do get it commercially serviced at Penzoil.

Ah, looks like they might be doing a good job. They probably change the
coolant inhibitor every couple of years as required in the service schedule.
>
> I bought it new in 1998.
>
> Advice?
>
> It has 150K+ on the odometer. I'd like to at least double that. ;-)

Should be possible. The Isuzu is a good jiggers!

Krypsis

On 23/06/2010 11:34 AM, Omelet wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/22/2010 6:45 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:18:55 -0500, >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>> Have you watched the crash videos?
>>>
>>> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
>>> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
>>> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
>>>
>>
>> Quite survivable with the air bags. That car has to be one of the most
>> tested vehicles just to demonstrate how well it protects the occupants
>> in a crash.
>
> I think they also have side air bags? Or am I mistaken?
> I can't see how the car that was "destroyed" would be more survivable.

Accidents have become much more survivable since they developed the
concept of the "crumple zone". As long as the crumpling ceases at the
occupant cage, you'll do ok as the vehicle body absorbs the impact. Far
better to claim on car insurance and buy a new vehicle than having
someone else claim on your life insurance!

Krypsis

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:34:31 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

> I think they also have side air bags? Or am I mistaken?
> I can't see how the car that was "destroyed" would be more survivab

I'm not talking about surviving, I'm talking about a car bouncing
around like a rubber ball. You may not die, but even with airbags
there's a lot of spine and head damage from flipping and rolling. I
love those cars and am looking at one for city driving, but there's no
way I'd use it on the freeway. Have you ever been to LA or San Diego
as an adult? They pass you at midnight like you're standing still,
you look at your speedometer and you're doing 70 mph. We don't drive
that fast up here, but it's still faster than we should.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

Omelet > wrote:

> Krypsis > wrote:

>> > Sounds kinda weird to me. My current vehicle is a Chevy S-10. 1998 and
>> > has yet to have any real engine issues. I use pure synthetic oil in it.

>> Run it without a decent quality inhibitor in the cooling system and
>> within 5 years you'll have an alloy cylinder head that's corroded through!

>Okay, please educate me... This truck is now 12 years old and is still
>running well. What did I miss please?

>Other than a manifold leak and a non-functioning AC system (and a couple
>of minor dents), the truck is still running ok with a good mpg rating. I
>do get it commercially serviced at Penzoil.

>I bought it new in 1998.

Penzoil probably puts the right coolant in it when they service
it. So you're golden.

Steve

In article > ,
Krypsis > wrote:

> On 23/06/2010 11:06 AM, Omelet wrote:
> > In .au>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>> Sounds kinda weird to me. My current vehicle is a Chevy S-10. 1998 and
> >>> has yet to have any real engine issues. I use pure synthetic oil in it.
> >>
> >> Run it without a decent quality inhibitor in the cooling system and
> >> within 5 years you'll have an alloy cylinder head that's corroded through!
> >>
> >> Krypsis
> >
> > Okay, please educate me... This truck is now 12 years old and is still
> > running well. What did I miss please?
>
> Do you service it yourself?

Nope! I take it to Penzoil. They keep a computer file on all vehicles
and track all maintenance, so they do air filters, battery checks and
other stuff along with the oil changes. It's well worth the money.

> >
> > Other than a manifold leak and a non-functioning AC system (and a couple
> > of minor dents), the truck is still running ok with a good mpg rating. I
> > do get it commercially serviced at Penzoil.
>
> Ah, looks like they might be doing a good job. They probably change the
> coolant inhibitor every couple of years as required in the service schedule.

They do a good job. :-)

> >
> > I bought it new in 1998.
> >
> > Advice?
> >
> > It has 150K+ on the odometer. I'd like to at least double that. ;-)
>
> Should be possible. The Isuzu is a good jiggers!
>
> Krypsis

I've heard that...
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:34:31 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> > I think they also have side air bags? Or am I mistaken?
> > I can't see how the car that was "destroyed" would be more survivab
>
> I'm not talking about surviving, I'm talking about a car bouncing
> around like a rubber ball. You may not die, but even with airbags
> there's a lot of spine and head damage from flipping and rolling. I
> love those cars and am looking at one for city driving, but there's no
> way I'd use it on the freeway. Have you ever been to LA or San Diego
> as an adult? They pass you at midnight like you're standing still,
> you look at your speedometer and you're doing 70 mph. We don't drive
> that fast up here, but it's still faster than we should.

It's just as bad on IH-35 between Austin and San Antonio... I commute
on the freeway daily. Some people need pilots licenses.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Omelet > wrote:
>
> > Krypsis > wrote:
>
> >> > Sounds kinda weird to me. My current vehicle is a Chevy S-10. 1998 and
> >> > has yet to have any real engine issues. I use pure synthetic oil in it.
>
> >> Run it without a decent quality inhibitor in the cooling system and
> >> within 5 years you'll have an alloy cylinder head that's corroded through!
>
> >Okay, please educate me... This truck is now 12 years old and is still
> >running well. What did I miss please?
>
> >Other than a manifold leak and a non-functioning AC system (and a couple
> >of minor dents), the truck is still running ok with a good mpg rating. I
> >do get it commercially serviced at Penzoil.
>
> >I bought it new in 1998.
>
> Penzoil probably puts the right coolant in it when they service
> it. So you're golden.
>
> Steve

They always ask before doing anything to it.... and I always say yes. ;-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:12:33 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Omelet
> wrote,
>In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
>> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
>> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
>
>With a seat belt and an air bag, I'd rather be inside of one of those
>than a car that crushed me to death. :-(

But being bounced around like that would really smart.

On 23/06/2010 9:06 PM, David Harmon wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:12:33 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Omelet
> > wrote,
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
>>> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
>>> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
>>
>> With a seat belt and an air bag, I'd rather be inside of one of those
>> than a car that crushed me to death. :-(
>
> But being bounced around like that would really smart.

Might not be a smart thing to do though!!

Krypsis

Omelet wrote:
>
> Not sure. I'll have to ask next time I am there.
> I know it's had at least one coolant flush, but not sure if that
> included the block. Thanks!
>
> I did have a little trouble starting it this winter when it got down to
> 20 degrees, but I've replaced the battery since then.


Trouble at 20 F? Time for a new battery, or to check your charging
system. Batteries don't hard their charge when the temperature drops,
but that should not be a problem until you get closer to 0. If your's is
failing at 20 degrees there is a problem.

On 6/23/2010 7:06 AM, David Harmon wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:12:33 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Omelet
> > wrote,
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
>>> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
>>> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
>>
>> With a seat belt and an air bag, I'd rather be inside of one of those
>> than a car that crushed me to death. :-(
>
> But being bounced around like that would really smart.

Consider this. Say a stuntman is jumping off a five story building. They
don't get into a giant SUV before they do it.

Same principle with the Smartcar. It has 4 air bags. There have been
numerous actual crashes performed and the instrumented crash dummy never
sustains anything more than trivial force.

On 6/22/2010 9:34 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/22/2010 6:45 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:18:55 -0500, >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>> Have you watched the crash videos?
>>>
>>> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
>>> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
>>> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
>>>
>>
>> Quite survivable with the air bags. That car has to be one of the most
>> tested vehicles just to demonstrate how well it protects the occupants
>> in a crash.
>
> I think they also have side air bags? Or am I mistaken?
> I can't see how the car that was "destroyed" would be more survivable.

They have 4 total. The giant fluffed up truck manufacturers do good
marketing telling folks that is what they need.

In article >,
George > wrote:


> Also we live in a area where we get heavy snow. The engine is rear
> mounted and they perform really well in snow. Really debunks the idea
> the idea that you have to have a fluffed up 4WD truck.
>
> Why is disappointing is all of the advertising lately from Government
> Motors on why we need to buy fluffed up trucks.

I'm not so sure about that. I think people already want the trucks.
The ads are more to convince them to buy *that* brand of truck instead
of the one from their competitor, because it's "XYZ tough" or "built
like a rock".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 6/23/2010 4:48 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Also we live in a area where we get heavy snow. The engine is rear
>> mounted and they perform really well in snow. Really debunks the idea
>> the idea that you have to have a fluffed up 4WD truck.
>>
>> Why is disappointing is all of the advertising lately from Government
>> Motors on why we need to buy fluffed up trucks.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. I think people already want the trucks.
> The ads are more to convince them to buy *that* brand of truck instead
> of the one from their competitor, because it's "XYZ tough" or "built
> like a rock".
>

All of the Government Motors marketing I have heard is more towards the
idea of making you think you need a fluffed up truck. Cue voice of young
woman; "my nameless car used to slip and slide all of the time, now with
my new "car" (big fluffed up truck) I feel so much safer with my family..."

In article >,
George > wrote:

> On 6/23/2010 4:48 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> > In >,
> > > wrote:

> >> Why is disappointing is all of the advertising lately from Government
> >> Motors on why we need to buy fluffed up trucks.
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that. I think people already want the trucks.
> > The ads are more to convince them to buy *that* brand of truck instead
> > of the one from their competitor, because it's "XYZ tough" or "built
> > like a rock".
> >
>
> All of the Government Motors marketing I have heard is more towards the
> idea of making you think you need a fluffed up truck. Cue voice of young
> woman; "my nameless car used to slip and slide all of the time, now with
> my new "car" (big fluffed up truck) I feel so much safer with my family..."

Haven't heard that one, fortunately. I still remember when I was first
looking for a truck. The salesman looked interested until I described
what I wanted. With a sneer in his voice and on his face, he said, oh,
you want a WORK truck! Well, I wanted transportation actually. I ended
up with a Toyota Tundra, purchased from a salesWOMAN with no attitude,
at half the price that they wanted you to think you needed to pay to be
in "style".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article > ,
David Harmon > wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:12:33 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Omelet
> > wrote,
> >In article >,
> > sf > wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
> >> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
> >> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
> >
> >With a seat belt and an air bag, I'd rather be inside of one of those
> >than a car that crushed me to death. :-(
>
> But being bounced around like that would really smart.

Hence the seatbelt and sidways air bags.
They are supposed to prevent you from being bounced around.

I'd rather be bruised than crushed. ;-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> >
> > Not sure. I'll have to ask next time I am there.
> > I know it's had at least one coolant flush, but not sure if that
> > included the block. Thanks!
> >
> > I did have a little trouble starting it this winter when it got down to
> > 20 degrees, but I've replaced the battery since then.
>
>
> Trouble at 20 F? Time for a new battery, or to check your charging
> system. Batteries don't hard their charge when the temperature drops,
> but that should not be a problem until you get closer to 0. If your's is
> failing at 20 degrees there is a problem.

Yes. It was past it's life span... and I did replace it.

Never did need a jump start, just had to warm up the engine enough
without flooding it to finally get it to turn over.

The charging system had been replaced less than a year previous.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
George > wrote:

> On 6/22/2010 9:34 PM, Omelet wrote:
> > In >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/22/2010 6:45 PM, sf wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:18:55 -0500, >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Why not?
> >>>> Have you watched the crash videos?
> >>>
> >>> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
> >>> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
> >>> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Quite survivable with the air bags. That car has to be one of the most
> >> tested vehicles just to demonstrate how well it protects the occupants
> >> in a crash.
> >
> > I think they also have side air bags? Or am I mistaken?
> > I can't see how the car that was "destroyed" would be more survivable.
>
> They have 4 total. The giant fluffed up truck manufacturers do good
> marketing telling folks that is what they need.

I'm getting that impression...

Smart cars get over 30 mpg too which is a big selling point.
Fluffed up SUV's and trucks don't.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On 6/23/2010 4:36 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In article<_cadnUqZ2NmZdrzRnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink .com>,
> David > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:12:33 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Omelet
>> > wrote,
>>> In >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
>>>> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
>>>> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
>>>
>>> With a seat belt and an air bag, I'd rather be inside of one of those
>>> than a car that crushed me to death. :-(
>>
>> But being bounced around like that would really smart.
>
> Hence the seatbelt and sidways air bags.
> They are supposed to prevent you from being bounced around.
>
> I'd rather be bruised than crushed. ;-)

It's a very impressive video. I would have a hard time believing that
stopping in less than 4 or so feet from 70 MPH would be survivable for
most people. My guess is that you're talking 60, 70, 80, 90 or so Gs of
deceleration. The good part is that your body would be quite presentable
although your eyeballs wouldn't be in their normal location - unless you
like to keep them on your dashboard.

Those cars would be pretty good over here in Hawaii since 50 MPH is
pretty fast for us. :-)

In article >,
dsi1 > wrote:

> > I'd rather be bruised than crushed. ;-)
>
> It's a very impressive video. I would have a hard time believing that
> stopping in less than 4 or so feet from 70 MPH would be survivable for
> most people. My guess is that you're talking 60, 70, 80, 90 or so Gs of
> deceleration. The good part is that your body would be quite presentable
> although your eyeballs wouldn't be in their normal location - unless you
> like to keep them on your dashboard.
>
> Those cars would be pretty good over here in Hawaii since 50 MPH is
> pretty fast for us. :-)

How fast you choose to drive is a personal choice.. <g>
Altho' that does not stop others from hitting you at those speeds.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On 24/06/2010 1:49 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>>> I'd rather be bruised than crushed. ;-)
>>
>> It's a very impressive video. I would have a hard time believing that
>> stopping in less than 4 or so feet from 70 MPH would be survivable for
>> most people. My guess is that you're talking 60, 70, 80, 90 or so Gs of
>> deceleration. The good part is that your body would be quite presentable
>> although your eyeballs wouldn't be in their normal location - unless you
>> like to keep them on your dashboard.
>>
>> Those cars would be pretty good over here in Hawaii since 50 MPH is
>> pretty fast for us. :-)
>
> How fast you choose to drive is a personal choice..<g>
> Altho' that does not stop others from hitting you at those speeds.

Try driving on a freeway at a speed slower than the maximum! Rear enders
become distinct possibilities. I learnt that in my younger days on
motorcycles - drive slower than the flow and you'll be mown down. I'd
suggest the same would apply to a car that is little larger than a
motorcycle.

Krypsis

On 24/06/2010 1:23 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/23/2010 4:36 PM, Omelet wrote:
>> In article<_cadnUqZ2NmZdrzRnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink .com>,
>> David > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:12:33 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Omelet
>>> > wrote,
>>>> In >,
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
>>>>> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
>>>>> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
>>>>
>>>> With a seat belt and an air bag, I'd rather be inside of one of those
>>>> than a car that crushed me to death. :-(
>>>
>>> But being bounced around like that would really smart.
>>
>> Hence the seatbelt and sidways air bags.
>> They are supposed to prevent you from being bounced around.
>>
>> I'd rather be bruised than crushed. ;-)
>
> It's a very impressive video. I would have a hard time believing that
> stopping in less than 4 or so feet from 70 MPH would be survivable for
> most people. My guess is that you're talking 60, 70, 80, 90 or so Gs of
> deceleration. The good part is that your body would be quite presentable
> although your eyeballs wouldn't be in their normal location - unless you
> like to keep them on your dashboard.
>
> Those cars would be pretty good over here in Hawaii since 50 MPH is
> pretty fast for us. :-)

50mph + the 50mph of the other often much larger vehicle and you have a
closing speed of 100mph. If the other vehicle is an SUV weighing 2 or 3
times more than the Smart, the momentum of that SUV will accelerate the
Smart to a rearward direction effectively increasing the relative speed
of the Smart.

Surviving a sudden stop from just 60mph is problematical for most
people. You see, the problems arise from the momentum of "parts" of your
body. Your torso, because it is strapped in, stops suddenly. Your head
moves on and your neck snaps. I have seen cases where people have not a
single mark on them but the neck is broken and they are quite dead!
You will also note that the crash didn't include real people...
significant fact that! I have seen other Smart crash tests where even
the airbag failed to prevent the dummies head from contacting the
steering wheel or dash. Was that force enough to snap a real persons
neck? I wonder!

Significant also is the fact that the Smart spun around violently. These
twisting forces are quite sufficient to snap your spine.

People survive high speed crashes now because of the cars progressive
crumple zone. That is an area of the car forward of the firewall that
progressively crumples absorbing the initial impact forces. To be
successful, the vehicle needs to have significant body length forward of
the firewall. With the Smart, your FEET are almost at the very front of
the vehicle. Effectively, your feet are IN the crumple zone. Look at the
front left corner of the Smart in the 70mph crash test! The driver might
be ok in this instance but the passenger would have significant issues.
You may survive but, as like as not, you will be forever condemned to
riding around in a small vehicle, a wheelchair.

Krypsis

In article > ,
Krypsis > wrote:

> > How fast you choose to drive is a personal choice..<g>
> > Altho' that does not stop others from hitting you at those speeds.
>
> Try driving on a freeway at a speed slower than the maximum! Rear enders
> become distinct possibilities. I learnt that in my younger days on
> motorcycles - drive slower than the flow and you'll be mown down. I'd
> suggest the same would apply to a car that is little larger than a
> motorcycle.
>
> Krypsis

<laughs> Use the slow or center lane! Builds less road rage in
others... ;-)

One of my personal pet peeves is morons driving the speed limit in the
fast lane.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:36:22 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

> I'd rather be bruised than crushed. ;-)

I'd rather avoid both.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:36:22 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> > I'd rather be bruised than crushed. ;-)
>
> I'd rather avoid both.

No argument there...
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:53:31 -0400, George >
wrote:

> All of the Government Motors marketing I have heard is more towards the
> idea of making you think you need a fluffed up truck. Cue voice of young
> woman; "my nameless car used to slip and slide all of the time,

<talking to commercial> Well, honey, if you slowed down a little and
didn't go around corners on two wheels maybe you wouldn't slip and
slide so much.

> now with
> my new "car" (big fluffed up truck) I feel so much safer with my family..."

I'm sure you do.


--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On 24/06/2010 2:26 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:36:22 -0500, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd rather be bruised than crushed. ;-)
>>
>> I'd rather avoid both.
>
> No argument there...


How about twisted in knots!!????

Here's a more realistic crash test involving a Smart!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZs1QuHerTU&NR=1


Krypsis

On 24/06/2010 2:13 PM, Krypsis wrote:
> On 24/06/2010 1:23 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 6/23/2010 4:36 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>> In article<_cadnUqZ2NmZdrzRnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink .com>,
>>> David > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:12:33 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Omelet
>>>> > wrote,
>>>>> In >,
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. The car posted previously was destroyed and the Smart Car
>>>>>> bounced around like a ball in both the videos I watched. I would
>>>>>> *not* want to be inside one whether or not the "cage" survived.
>>>>>
>>>>> With a seat belt and an air bag, I'd rather be inside of one of those
>>>>> than a car that crushed me to death. :-(
>>>>
>>>> But being bounced around like that would really smart.
>>>
>>> Hence the seatbelt and sidways air bags.
>>> They are supposed to prevent you from being bounced around.
>>>
>>> I'd rather be bruised than crushed. ;-)
>>
>> It's a very impressive video. I would have a hard time believing that
>> stopping in less than 4 or so feet from 70 MPH would be survivable for
>> most people. My guess is that you're talking 60, 70, 80, 90 or so Gs of
>> deceleration. The good part is that your body would be quite presentable
>> although your eyeballs wouldn't be in their normal location - unless you
>> like to keep them on your dashboard.
>>
>> Those cars would be pretty good over here in Hawaii since 50 MPH is
>> pretty fast for us. :-)
>
> 50mph + the 50mph of the other often much larger vehicle and you have a
> closing speed of 100mph. If the other vehicle is an SUV weighing 2 or 3
> times more than the Smart, the momentum of that SUV will accelerate the
> Smart to a rearward direction effectively increasing the relative speed
> of the Smart.
>
> Surviving a sudden stop from just 60mph is problematical for most
> people. You see, the problems arise from the momentum of "parts" of your
> body. Your torso, because it is strapped in, stops suddenly. Your head
> moves on and your neck snaps. I have seen cases where people have not a
> single mark on them but the neck is broken and they are quite dead!
> You will also note that the crash didn't include real people...
> significant fact that! I have seen other Smart crash tests where even
> the airbag failed to prevent the dummies head from contacting the
> steering wheel or dash. Was that force enough to snap a real persons
> neck? I wonder!
>
> Significant also is the fact that the Smart spun around violently. These
> twisting forces are quite sufficient to snap your spine.
>
> People survive high speed crashes now because of the cars progressive
> crumple zone. That is an area of the car forward of the firewall that
> progressively crumples absorbing the initial impact forces. To be
> successful, the vehicle needs to have significant body length forward of
> the firewall. With the Smart, your FEET are almost at the very front of
> the vehicle. Effectively, your feet are IN the crumple zone. Look at the
> front left corner of the Smart in the 70mph crash test! The driver might
> be ok in this instance but the passenger would have significant issues.
> You may survive but, as like as not, you will be forever condemned to
> riding around in a small vehicle, a wheelchair.
>
> Krypsis
>
I'll post an addendum to my earlier post as this YouTube video pretty
much demonstrates my viewpoint on the Smart in a crash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmUBgTHppv8&NR=1

Don't get me wrong here. I quite like the Smart myself. I'd even buy one
IF all the other cars I'm likely to encounter are of a similar size. The
reality is that there isn't much on the road that's even close to the
miniscule size of the Smart.

My wife's daily drive is a current model Toyota Corolla. It has a kerb
weight of 1330 Kg (2925 lbs) compared with the kerb weight of the Smart
at 730 Kg (1600 lbs). That means that, in an impact with a Smart, my
wife's car will transfer a sizeable portion of it's kinetic energy to
the Smart. This will result in the Smart being bounced backwards quite
violently. If the impact is a half frontal, the transfer of kinetic
energy will impart a spin to the Smart's backward bounce. This can be
quite clearly seen in the Youtube video.

Krypsis