Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or 
silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or 
> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
> these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
> window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
> which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.
> 
> B2003
> 
> 
Nothing to what it sounds like 'inside' some vans.

Bod

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or 
> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
> these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
> window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
> which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.
> 
> B2003
> 
> 
Because cost, load capacity and fuel economy take priority?

wrote in message news:hba0q6$jge$1@aioe.org...
> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or
> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
> these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
> window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
> which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.
>
It's also due to the accellerator being virtually welded to the floor at all 
times.

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:11:19 +0100
Chris Bartram  wrote:
>boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or 
>> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
>> these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
>> window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
>> which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.
>> 
>> B2003
>> 
>> 
>Because cost, load capacity and fuel economy take priority?

I'm sure the same reasoning could be used not to bother to include
exhaust filters or silencers if they weren't a legal requirement, but 
perhaps a bit more consideration should be given to the people who have to 
put up with the noise. Anyway , how much does sound deadening weigh? A
few kilos at most? They could probably get more difference in economy
by putting some drivers on a diet!

B2003

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:11:19 +0100, Chris Bartram
 wrote:

>boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or 
>> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
>> these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
>> window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
>> which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.
>> 
>> B2003
>> 
>> 
>Because cost, load capacity and fuel economy take priority?

More to do with large undamped metal panels methinks. That and the
absence of soft furnishings not to mention sound absorbing material.

Oddly IME the fuel economy of car derived vans has traditionally been
significantly worse than the cars they were based on, even in the case
20+ years ago when vans had low compression low output engines so they
would run on cheap muck low octane fuel. 

Van fleet operators being happier with cheap muck fuel to discourage
pilfereage for use in cars.  

Derek

Doki wrote:
> 
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in 
> message news:hba63d$20m$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>  wrote in message news:hba0q6$jge$1@aioe.org...
>>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or
>>> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
>>> these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
>>> window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
>>> which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.
>>>
>> It's also due to the accellerator being virtually welded to the floor 
>> at all times.
> 
> *ding*. The average mid - large sized van has a diesel engine that 
> wouldn't be out of place in a small - medium sized hatchback. The simple 
> fact is that van engines work very hard, and get revved a hell of a lot.

Its not only that. At least 20 years ago Ford were using direct 
injection diesels in their Transits vans much beloved by contractors of 
the day. (Nothing against Ford, every other manufacturer did the same 
but sold less) They were hellishly noisy especially when someone started 
one right outside your gaff at 5.30 in the morning. I suspect most 
manufacturers have moved to indirect injection these days but they care 
no more about the noise than they ever did.

-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

In article <zB3Cm.4036$KR3.1243@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Mr Pounder 
says...


> I thought that you had fucked off.

Never left - well, left for about a month. The intelligent in the group 
worked out my alter ego months ago.


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

"John Wright" <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote in message 
news:6tOdndRAZu2veEXXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@pipex.net...

> Its not only that. At least 20 years ago Ford were using direct injection 
> diesels in their Transits vans much beloved by contractors of the day. 
> (Nothing against Ford, every other manufacturer did the same but sold 
> less) They were hellishly noisy especially when someone started one right 
> outside your gaff at 5.30 in the morning. I suspect most manufacturers 
> have moved to indirect injection these days but they care no more about 
> the noise than they ever did.

T'other way round. Diesels have moved to direct injection at much higher 
pressures. The old ford may have been direct, but at a lower pressure than 
stuff these days.

On 16 Oct, 15:43, boltar2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or
> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
> these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
> window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
> which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.
>
> B2003

Van engines are diesel and this  means that have to compress to higher
pressures which require higher capabilities of components.

McKevvy

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
Vicko Zoomba  wrote:
>On 16 Oct, 15:43, boltar2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or
>> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
>> these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
>> window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
>> which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.
>>
>> B2003
>
>Van engines are diesel and this  means that have to compress to higher
>pressures which require higher capabilities of components.

Err, I guess you haven't noticed all the diesel cars that have been around
for the last 10 years that are a damn sight quieter than any van not to 
mention most of them developing equivalent or greater horsepower.

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> perhaps a bit more consideration should be given to the people who have
> to put up with the noise.

Which is why the same drive-by noise regs apply to vans as to cars.

> Anyway , how much does sound deadening weigh?
> A few kilos at most?

CONSIDERABLY more. On a big luxury car, a couple of hundred kilos.

Derek Geldard  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> Oddly IME the fuel economy of car derived vans has traditionally been
> significantly worse than the cars they were based on

Do you think aerodynamics might have something to do with that?

Conor  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> More to do with a completely different design of engine. It needs to be
> able to work at a higher workload (not many cars go round most of the
> time loaded near their max capacity) whilst having longer gaps between
> service intervals AND also do higher mileage.

Slightly different spec/tune, sure, but most van engines are based on the 
same designs as car engines.

On 17 Oct 2009 07:33:18 GMT, Adrian  wrote:

>Derek Geldard  gurgled happily, sounding much
>like they were saying:
>
>> Oddly IME the fuel economy of car derived vans has traditionally been
>> significantly worse than the cars they were based on
>
>Do you think aerodynamics might have something to do with that?

No.

I suspect the aerodynamic efficiency of a Fiesta van is the same as
that of a Fiesta car, similarly for the Nova van/car etc

-- 
Peter

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:27:10 +0100, John Wright <""john\"@no spam
here.com"> wrote:


>Its not only that. At least 20 years ago Ford were using direct 
>injection diesels in their Transits vans much beloved by contractors of 
>the day. (Nothing against Ford, every other manufacturer did the same 
>but sold less) They were hellishly noisy especially when someone started 
>one right outside your gaff at 5.30 in the morning. I suspect most 
>manufacturers have moved to indirect injection these days but they care 
>no more about the noise than they ever did.

Didn't DI engines appear after IDI engines?

-- 
Peter

"Peter"  wrote in message 
news:rv4jd59840hkpem1agdqrui08hsvbopfgb@4ax.com...
> On 17 Oct 2009 07:33:18 GMT, Adrian  wrote:
>
>>Derek Geldard  gurgled happily, sounding 
>>much
>>like they were saying:
>>
>>> Oddly IME the fuel economy of car derived vans has traditionally 
>>> been
>>> significantly worse than the cars they were based on
>>
>>Do you think aerodynamics might have something to do with that?
>
> No.
>
> I suspect the aerodynamic efficiency of a Fiesta van is the same as
> that of a Fiesta car, similarly for the Nova van/car etc
>
No. Vans have poorer aerodynamics than saloons as the R Send of a van 
is somewhat different.   Similarly, convertible versions are generally 
poorer than the saloon.  Estate versions are usually same as vans.

In article , Peter says...

> No reason to suspect a properly maintained car shouldn't cover 400,000
> miles.

Indeed. However it won't have spent most of that grossing at 3 tonnes 
being driven hard and with 20k or higher service intervals.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

Conor wrote:
> In article , Peter says...
> 
>> No reason to suspect a properly maintained car shouldn't cover 400,000
>> miles.
> 
> Indeed. However it won't have spent most of that grossing at 3 tonnes 
> being driven hard and with 20k or higher service intervals.
> 

Bloke across the road to me has just bought a 
diesel Ford Focus, I was was pleasantly surprised 
how quiet it sounds.

Bod

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Vicko Zoomba
 wrote:

>On 16 Oct, 15:43, boltar2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or
>> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
>> these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
>> window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
>> which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.
>>
>> B2003
>
>Van engines are diesel and this  means that have to compress to higher
>pressures which require higher capabilities of components.
>
>McKevvy

Every car I've owned since 1985 (a 1600 Escort diesel) has been
powered by a diesel engine

-- 
Peter

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:02:51 +0100, Conor  wrote:

>In article <hbad3u$3pd$1@aioe.org>, boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
>> Err, I guess you haven't noticed all the diesel cars that have been around
>> for the last 10 years that are a damn sight quieter than any van not to 
>> mention most of them developing equivalent or greater horsepower.
>> 
>But not guaranteed to be able to do 400,000 miles on the service 
>intervals of a van nor to spend as much time carrying the weight.

No reason to suspect a properly maintained car shouldn't cover 400,000
miles.

-- 
Peter

Peter  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>> Oddly IME the fuel economy of car derived vans has traditionally been
>>> significantly worse than the cars they were based on

>>Do you think aerodynamics might have something to do with that?

> No.
> 
> I suspect the aerodynamic efficiency of a Fiesta van is the same as that
> of a Fiesta car, similarly for the Nova van/car etc

OK, my misunderstanding - I thought you were referring to (f'rinstance) 
Vauxhall Combos or Transit Connects.

It's entirely likely that the vans have lower gearing, since there's an 
expectation of heavier loads.

Peter wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:02:51 +0100, Conor  wrote:
> 
>> In article <hbad3u$3pd$1@aioe.org>, boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>>> Err, I guess you haven't noticed all the diesel cars that have been around
>>> for the last 10 years that are a damn sight quieter than any van not to 
>>> mention most of them developing equivalent or greater horsepower.
>>>
>> But not guaranteed to be able to do 400,000 miles on the service 
>> intervals of a van nor to spend as much time carrying the weight.
> 
> No reason to suspect a properly maintained car shouldn't cover 400,000
> miles.

I don't think there are too many cars that would do that. At one time I 
had an old Volvo 240 (which were renowned for their longevity) which did 
about 450,000 miles before it died. I registered it on the Volvo owners 
club high mileage thingy and it got a silver award  i.e. it went less 
than some but more than most.

That car died because the bodywork was no longer any good. The engine 
and transmission were still going strong.


-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

In article <hba0q6$jge$1@aioe.org>, boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk says...
> 
> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or 
> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
> these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
> window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
> which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.
> 
Soundproofing isn't weightless. Load capacity is everything.


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

In article <hbad3u$3pd$1@aioe.org>, boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk says...

> Err, I guess you haven't noticed all the diesel cars that have been around
> for the last 10 years that are a damn sight quieter than any van not to 
> mention most of them developing equivalent or greater horsepower.
> 
But not guaranteed to be able to do 400,000 miles on the service 
intervals of a van nor to spend as much time carrying the weight.



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

In article <hbab6l$1eo$1@aioe.org>, boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk says...
> 
> Anyway , how much does sound deadening weigh? A
> few kilos at most? 

Say what? Try 50+.


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.2542f5d1e115473a989811@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <zB3Cm.4036$KR3.1243@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Mr Pounder
> says...
>
>
>> I thought that you had fucked off.
>
> Never left - well, left for about a month. The intelligent in the group
> worked out my alter ego months ago.

I little time here.
But, even though you have called me a stupid cunt in the past I still 
respect your profession.

Mr Pounder

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:39:16 +0100
Conor  wrote:
>In article , Peter says...
>
>> No reason to suspect a properly maintained car shouldn't cover 400,000
>> miles.
>
>Indeed. However it won't have spent most of that grossing at 3 tonnes 
>being driven hard and with 20k or higher service intervals.

Which is why most of them are scrap after about 5 years. I doubt many get
anywhere close to 400K. Most builders vans I've seen spend most of their
life sitting parked up on site. Post Office vans probably do the most 
miles.

B2003

Mr Pounder wrote:
> "Conor"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.2542f5d1e115473a989811@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <zB3Cm.4036$KR3.1243@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Mr Pounder
>> says...
>>
>>
>>> I thought that you had fucked off.
>> Never left - well, left for about a month. The intelligent in the group
>> worked out my alter ego months ago.
> 
> I little time here.
> But, even though you have called me a stupid cunt in the past I still 
> respect your profession.
> 
> Mr Pounder 
> 
> 
Male prostitute ?  :-)

Bod

Derek Geldard wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:11:19 +0100, Chris Bartram
>  wrote:
> 
>> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or 
>>> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? The din coming out of
>>> these vehicles is a pain in the rear if you're near a road and have the
>>> window open. I'm sure they make almost as much noise as a large truck
>>> which is quite impressive for an engine probably 1/8th the size.
>>>
>>> B2003
>>>
>>>
>> Because cost, load capacity and fuel economy take priority?
> 
> More to do with large undamped metal panels methinks. That and the
> absence of soft furnishings not to mention sound absorbing material.
That was some of what I was getting at. Leave out all the sound 
deadening and the van is lighter, so more economical and cheaper.

Peter wrote:

> 
> Didn't DI engines appear after IDI engines?
> 

Generally yes. The Transit was quite early to adopt DI compared to cars.

Chris Bartram  gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>> Didn't DI engines appear after IDI engines?

> Generally yes. The Transit was quite early to adopt DI compared to cars.

Who said "Perkins Prima in Montego"?

"Bod"  wrote in message 
news:7jubunF37aad6U1@mid.individual.net...
> Mr Pounder wrote:
>> "Bod"  wrote in message 
>> news:7ju855F375lioU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> Mr Pounder wrote:
>>>> "Conor"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:MPG.2542f5d1e115473a989811@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> In article <zB3Cm.4036$KR3.1243@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Mr Pounder
>>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought that you had fucked off.
>>>>> Never left - well, left for about a month. The intelligent in the 
>>>>> group
>>>>> worked out my alter ego months ago.
>>>> I little time here.
>>>> But, even though you have called me a stupid cunt in the past I still 
>>>> respect your profession.
>>>>
>>>> Mr Pounder
>>> Male prostitute ?  :-)
>>>
>>> Bod
>>
>> HGV driver I think.
>> I have the highest respects for HGV drivers.
>> I have seen them do the impossible.
>> They have a real shit job.
>>
>> Mr Pounder
>>
>>
> I can think of worse.
>
> Bod

I know of worse.
When is the last time you *really* had to take a poo whilst on the road at 
4am?

Mr Pounder

In article , Clive 
George says...
> 
> "Conor"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.25440ea26cc9a14e989824@news.eternal-september.org...
> 
> > Parceline's exceeded that by the end of year 3.
> ...
> > They don't. Courier firms do such as DHL, Parceline etc.
> 
> What sort of weights are they carrying? 

They do 100 drops or more a day so probably near a tonne which is near 
their max load capacity.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

"Peter"  wrote in message 
news:ic5jd59slejdgo1qi5k96tppnla9k680ai@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:02:51 +0100, Conor  wrote:
>
>>In article <hbad3u$3pd$1@aioe.org>, boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>>> Err, I guess you haven't noticed all the diesel cars that have been 
>>> around
>>> for the last 10 years that are a damn sight quieter than any van not to
>>> mention most of them developing equivalent or greater horsepower.
>>>
>>But not guaranteed to be able to do 400,000 miles on the service
>>intervals of a van nor to spend as much time carrying the weight.
>
> No reason to suspect a properly maintained car shouldn't cover 400,000
> miles.

None at all, plenty of quality cars do, and some lower quality ones with 
considerate owners.

My car shares its basic engine with the old Sprinter 316, I expect 
mechanical engine problems to be the least of my worries for the next 270k 
miles. Some of the differences between mine and the van version include the 
alternator (Van, aircooled and noisy, car, watercooled) but bonnet up and 
plastic cover off it sounds just like the van.

The current V6 diesel merc vans share basic engine with the S320cdi...



-- 
And remember kids, RAID is safe and the UPS never fails, and Cisco routers 
never develop intermittent faults, and external hard drives never fail with 
only  a month's use, and the DNS is reliable and resilient, and the 
mailserver is protected from all forms of attack, and the replacement UPS 
will be reliable as the first one was an unusual failure. No one will ever 
guess /that/ password, the aircon can't fail 285V is close enough to 230, 
and the QoS on the PWan won't obstruct the tagged traffic.

"Mr Pounder"  wrote in message 
news:cLmCm.4371$KR3.3202@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "Bod"  wrote in message 
> news:7ju855F375lioU2@mid.individual.net...
>> Mr Pounder wrote:
>>> "Conor"  wrote in message 
>>> news:MPG.2542f5d1e115473a989811@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> In article <zB3Cm.4036$KR3.1243@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Mr Pounder
>>>> says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I thought that you had fucked off.
>>>> Never left - well, left for about a month. The intelligent in the group
>>>> worked out my alter ego months ago.
>>>
>>> I little time here.
>>> But, even though you have called me a stupid cunt in the past I still 
>>> respect your profession.
>>>
>>> Mr Pounder
>> Male prostitute ?  :-)
>>
>> Bod
>
> HGV driver I think.
> I have the highest respects for HGV drivers.
> I have seen them do the impossible.
> They have a real shit job.
>

Don't assume that.. Conor is NOT a HGV driver..  he said so on 
uk.radio.amateur..

He hasn't changed though.  is still slinging insults like they are going out 
of fashion.

"Peter"  wrote in message 
news:ic5jd59slejdgo1qi5k96tppnla9k680ai@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:02:51 +0100, Conor  wrote:
>
>>In article <hbad3u$3pd$1@aioe.org>, boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>>> Err, I guess you haven't noticed all the diesel cars that have been 
>>> around
>>> for the last 10 years that are a damn sight quieter than any van not to
>>> mention most of them developing equivalent or greater horsepower.
>>>
>>But not guaranteed to be able to do 400,000 miles on the service
>>intervals of a van nor to spend as much time carrying the weight.
>
> No reason to suspect a properly maintained car shouldn't cover 400,000
> miles.

Indeed no. The reason most cars don't cover that is because people don't 
try.

"Robin"  wrote in message 
news:4ada832e$0$2479$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Mr Pounder"  wrote in message 
> news:cLmCm.4371$KR3.3202@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "Bod"  wrote in message 
>> news:7ju855F375lioU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> Mr Pounder wrote:
>>>> "Conor"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:MPG.2542f5d1e115473a989811@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> In article <zB3Cm.4036$KR3.1243@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Mr Pounder
>>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought that you had fucked off.
>>>>> Never left - well, left for about a month. The intelligent in the 
>>>>> group
>>>>> worked out my alter ego months ago.
>>>>
>>>> I little time here.
>>>> But, even though you have called me a stupid cunt in the past I still 
>>>> respect your profession.
>>>>
>>>> Mr Pounder
>>> Male prostitute ?  :-)
>>>
>>> Bod
>>
>> HGV driver I think.
>> I have the highest respects for HGV drivers.
>> I have seen them do the impossible.
>> They have a real shit job.
>>
>
> Don't assume that.. Conor is NOT a HGV driver..  he said so on 
> uk.radio.amateur..
>
> He hasn't changed though.  is still slinging insults like they are going 
> out of fashion.

Oh!
I always thought that he drove HGV.
He seems very clued up.

Mr Pounder
>

In article <aFECm.4661$KR3.3150@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Mr Pounder 
says...

> I always thought that he drove HGV.

I did for 16 years. Not been in one for 11 months now.

> He seems very clued up.
> 
I am.



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.25453bd3292703ae98983f@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <aFECm.4661$KR3.3150@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Mr Pounder
> says...
>
>> I always thought that he drove HGV.
>
> I did for 16 years. Not been in one for 11 months now.
>
>> He seems very clued up.
>>
> I am.

Okay, okay and fucking okay.
I do not really wish to spar words with you.
But if you push me I will take the dare.

Do you miss being on the road?

Mr Pounder
>
>
>
> -- 
> Conor
> www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
>
> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

Adrian wrote:
> Chris Bartram  gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
> 
>>> Didn't DI engines appear after IDI engines?
> 
>> Generally yes. The Transit was quite early to adopt DI compared to cars.
> 
> Who said "Perkins Prima in Montego"?
Was that earlier than the transit DI? I genuinely don't know, but IIRC I 
drove a 87 transit DI.

ISTR Fiat were quite earlt adopters of DI as well.

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening or 
> silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? 

If van's were things of silence there would be people causing rather 
deadly accidents with them.

-- 
Adrian C

Petert wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2009 10:04:31 GMT, Adrian  wrote:
> 
>> Peter  gurgled happily, sounding much like
>> they were saying:
>>
>>>>> Oddly IME the fuel economy of car derived vans has traditionally been
>>>>> significantly worse than the cars they were based on
>>>> Do you think aerodynamics might have something to do with that?
>>> No.
>>>
>>> I suspect the aerodynamic efficiency of a Fiesta van is the same as that
>>> of a Fiesta car, similarly for the Nova van/car etc
>> OK, my misunderstanding - I thought you were referring to (f'rinstance) 
>> Vauxhall Combos or Transit Connects.
>>
>> It's entirely likely that the vans have lower gearing, since there's an 
>> expectation of heavier loads.
> 
> Yes, I suppose the gearing may have an effect.

Engineers, being perverse, could make it worse by using straight cut 
gears :-)
-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

Adrian C wrote:
> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening 
>> or silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? 
> 
> If van's were things of silence there would be people causing rather 
> deadly accidents with them.

Indeed, blind support groups are backing legislation (in the US anyway) 
which will make otherwise silent (in city running) hybrid cars make a noise.


-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

John Wright > wrote:
> Adrian C wrote:
>> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening 
>>> or silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? 
>>
>> If van's were things of silence there would be people causing rather 
>> deadly accidents with them.
> 
> Indeed, blind support groups are backing legislation (in the US anyway) 
> which will make otherwise silent (in city running) hybrid cars make a 
> noise.
> 
> 
Is it a good idea to allow blind people to drive 
!?  :-)

Bod

Bod wrote:
> John Wright > wrote:
>> Adrian C wrote:
>>> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound deadening 
>>>> or silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? 
>>>
>>> If van's were things of silence there would be people causing rather 
>>> deadly accidents with them.
>>
>> Indeed, blind support groups are backing legislation (in the US 
>> anyway) which will make otherwise silent (in city running) hybrid cars 
>> make a noise.
>>
>>
> Is it a good idea to allow blind people to drive !?  :-)

To answer your question directly no. But these are groups that would 
call themselves pedestrians. (Oh how I hate that abbreviation used by 
cyclists more than anything else of peds)


-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

John Wright > wrote:
> Bod wrote:
>> John Wright > wrote:
>>> Adrian C wrote:
>>>> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound 
>>>>> deadening or silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? 
>>>>
>>>> If van's were things of silence there would be people causing rather 
>>>> deadly accidents with them.
>>>
>>> Indeed, blind support groups are backing legislation (in the US 
>>> anyway) which will make otherwise silent (in city running) hybrid 
>>> cars make a noise.
>>>
>>>
>> Is it a good idea to allow blind people to drive !?  :-)
> 
> To answer your question directly no. But these are groups that would 
> call themselves pedestrians. (Oh how I hate that abbreviation used by 
> cyclists more than anything else of peds)
> 
> 
That apart, I thought that electric cars/hybrids 
made a sort of whining sound?

Bod

Bod wrote:
> John Wright > wrote:
>> Bod wrote:
>>> John Wright > wrote:
>>>> Adrian C wrote:
>>>>> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound 
>>>>>> deadening or silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? 
>>>>>
>>>>> If van's were things of silence there would be people causing 
>>>>> rather deadly accidents with them.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, blind support groups are backing legislation (in the US 
>>>> anyway) which will make otherwise silent (in city running) hybrid 
>>>> cars make a noise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Is it a good idea to allow blind people to drive !?  :-)
>>
>> To answer your question directly no. But these are groups that would 
>> call themselves pedestrians. (Oh how I hate that abbreviation used by 
>> cyclists more than anything else of peds)
>>
>>
> That apart, I thought that electric cars/hybrids made a sort of whining 
> sound?

I would have thought so, but so many people in the US seem to think its 
a big problem for them. All those IGBTs and electric motors are not 
silent after all.

This may be useful in this context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_car#Noise

-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

John Wright > wrote:
> Bod wrote:
>> John Wright > wrote:
>>> Bod wrote:
>>>> John Wright > wrote:
>>>>> Adrian C wrote:
>>>>>> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound 
>>>>>>> deadening or silencer quality on vans that they do on cars? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If van's were things of silence there would be people causing 
>>>>>> rather deadly accidents with them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, blind support groups are backing legislation (in the US 
>>>>> anyway) which will make otherwise silent (in city running) hybrid 
>>>>> cars make a noise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Is it a good idea to allow blind people to drive !?  :-)
>>>
>>> To answer your question directly no. But these are groups that would 
>>> call themselves pedestrians. (Oh how I hate that abbreviation used by 
>>> cyclists more than anything else of peds)
>>>
>>>
>> That apart, I thought that electric cars/hybrids made a sort of 
>> whining sound?
> 
> I would have thought so, but so many people in the US seem to think its 
> a big problem for them. All those IGBTs and electric motors are not 
> silent after all.
> 
> This may be useful in this context:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_car#Noise
> 
Read it <thanks>, but cycles are much quieter than 
EVs or HEVs and not only have they been around for 
a hundred years or so but there are literally 
millions of them.
They also travel at low speeds, so I can't really 
see why accidents are more prevalent with EVs, 
because at least they make 'some' noise (certainly 
more than a bicycle).
My point is, that if sound were a real problem for 
blind people, then why haven't they pushed for 
bicycles to make a noise.

ps: (sorry about the long winded explanation)

Bod

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:14:53 +0100
Bod  wrote:
>My point is, that if sound were a real problem for 
>blind people, then why haven't they pushed for 
>bicycles to make a noise.

If bikes were invented today they probably would be. There are always going
to be self indulgent pressure groups who claim to speak for the majority
who spineless politicians and law makers bend over backwards for. There seems 
to be something in the political psyche that makes it wave a white flag in 
front of anyone who makes a big enough noise no matter how little popular 
support they have.

Personally I think the reduction in noise from the introduction of electric
cars would be one of the benefits , though bearing in mind that at any
reasonable speed the tyres make up the majority of the noise coming from a car.
Even so , city centres would be much nicer places especially without the
diesel death rattle we have everywhere now.

B2003

wrote in message news:hbjsrn$uli$1@aioe.org...
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:14:53 +0100
> Personally I think the reduction in noise from the introduction of 
> electric
> cars would be one of the benefits , though bearing in mind that at any
> reasonable speed the tyres make up the majority of the noise coming from a 
> car.
> Even so , city centres would be much nicer places especially without the
> diesel death rattle we have everywhere now.

If the motor drives the wheels by direct drive or fairly low-geared gearing, 
then the noise will be minimal. However I find the high-pitched whine of 
vehicles like milk floats, especially when the pitch varies during 
accelerating and decelerating, more intrusive than the lower-pitched (but 
louder) diesel clatter.

The other possible problem is that electric cars may use AC induction motors 
rather than DC motors and these often use control electronics to vary the 
frequency of the electrical supply to vary the speed. This can lead to 
"singing" motors: you can hear it on some modern third-rail electric trains 
(eg those used on lines out of Victoria, Waterloo and London Bridge in 
London); it was not present on the older DC-motored trains.

"Bod"  wrote in message 
news:7k59s0F37uk2vU1@mid.individual.net...

> Read it <thanks>, but cycles are much quieter than EVs or HEVs and not 
> only have they been around for a hundred years or so but there are 
> literally millions of them.
> They also travel at low speeds, so I can't really see why accidents are 
> more prevalent with EVs, because at least they make 'some' noise 
> (certainly more than a bicycle).
> My point is, that if sound were a real problem for blind people, then why 
> haven't they pushed for bicycles to make a noise.

If I drive my car through town at 20mph I do not usually have any problem 
with pedestrians stepping out in front of me. In fact, they normally wait 
for me to yield before they cross the road or step in front of me. If I 
cycle at the same speed and in the same road position I will have 
pedestrians stepping in front of me without looking. I think that a lot of 
pedestrians rely heavily on the sound of approaching traffic without 
actually realising it. If the road is (audibly) quiet, they think that the 
road is safe and may take a quick glance, just to be sure, as they step into 
the road.

Cyclists are used to it. Drivers are not so used to it. So while ECs and 
hybrids may be a good thing in many respects (including noise reduction) the 
drivers will need to modify their behaviour so as to anticipate not being 
heard by pedestrians.

Martin wrote:
>  wrote in message news:hbjsrn$uli$1@aioe.org...
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:14:53 +0100
>> Personally I think the reduction in noise from the introduction of 
>> electric
>> cars would be one of the benefits , though bearing in mind that at any
>> reasonable speed the tyres make up the majority of the noise coming 
>> from a car.
>> Even so , city centres would be much nicer places especially without the
>> diesel death rattle we have everywhere now.
> 
> If the motor drives the wheels by direct drive or fairly low-geared 
> gearing, then the noise will be minimal. However I find the high-pitched 
> whine of vehicles like milk floats, especially when the pitch varies 
> during accelerating and decelerating, more intrusive than the 
> lower-pitched (but louder) diesel clatter.
> 
> The other possible problem is that electric cars may use AC induction 
> motors rather than DC motors and these often use control electronics to 
> vary the frequency of the electrical supply to vary the speed. This can 
> lead to "singing" motors: you can hear it on some modern third-rail 
> electric trains (eg those used on lines out of Victoria, Waterloo and 
> London Bridge in London); it was not present on the older DC-motored 
> trains.

Yeh, I remember those whiney old milk floats an 
annoying noise.

Bod

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:56:30 +0100
"Martin"  wrote:
>If the motor drives the wheels by direct drive or fairly low-geared gearing, 
>then the noise will be minimal. However I find the high-pitched whine of 
>vehicles like milk floats, especially when the pitch varies during 
>accelerating and decelerating, more intrusive than the lower-pitched (but 
>louder) diesel clatter.

Milk floats are pretty low tech though. It would be like comparing a modern
diesel car with something Otto knocked up in his garage.

>The other possible problem is that electric cars may use AC induction motors 
>rather than DC motors and these often use control electronics to vary the 
>frequency of the electrical supply to vary the speed. This can lead to 
>"singing" motors: you can hear it on some modern third-rail electric trains 
>(eg those used on lines out of Victoria, Waterloo and London Bridge in 
>London); it was not present on the older DC-motored trains. 

The gearchanging type sounds you can hear on networkers and jubilee line trains
is because they use GTO choppers to create the 3 phase waveform to drive the 
motors and these operate at a frequency in the human hearing range. New designs
use IGBTs which work at frequency close to or above the limit of human ears
so the really new trains don't actually make much of a sound, just a sort
of low level squeel. For much lower powered road vehicles I suspect it would
be inaudible.

The best sound I've heard is on the montreal metro where you get a sequence
of 3 notes from the motors on some new trains when the train starts to move. 
It almost sounds like a sort of departure fanfare.

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:14:53 +0100
> Bod  wrote:
>> My point is, that if sound were a real problem for 
>> blind people, then why haven't they pushed for 
>> bicycles to make a noise.
> 
> If bikes were invented today they probably would be. There are always going
> to be self indulgent pressure groups who claim to speak for the majority
> who spineless politicians and law makers bend over backwards for. There seems 
> to be something in the political psyche that makes it wave a white flag in 
> front of anyone who makes a big enough noise no matter how little popular 
> support they have.

This is the real point I think. Its what people are used to - cycles 
being silent are normal. Cars being silent are not. Therefore we must do 
something about it.

Its way off the subject but the same also would apply to alcohol and 
tobacco - if they were being introduced today they would not be allowed.

> Personally I think the reduction in noise from the introduction of electric
> cars would be one of the benefits , though bearing in mind that at any
> reasonable speed the tyres make up the majority of the noise coming from a car.
> Even so , city centres would be much nicer places especially without the
> diesel death rattle we have everywhere now.

Agreed.

-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

Martin wrote:
>  wrote in message news:hbjsrn$uli$1@aioe.org...
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:14:53 +0100
>> Personally I think the reduction in noise from the introduction of 
>> electric
>> cars would be one of the benefits , though bearing in mind that at any
>> reasonable speed the tyres make up the majority of the noise coming 
>> from a car.
>> Even so , city centres would be much nicer places especially without the
>> diesel death rattle we have everywhere now.
> 
> If the motor drives the wheels by direct drive or fairly low-geared 
> gearing, then the noise will be minimal. However I find the high-pitched 
> whine of vehicles like milk floats, especially when the pitch varies 
> during accelerating and decelerating, more intrusive than the 
> lower-pitched (but louder) diesel clatter.
> 
> The other possible problem is that electric cars may use AC induction 
> motors rather than DC motors and these often use control electronics to 
> vary the frequency of the electrical supply to vary the speed. This can 
> lead to "singing" motors: you can hear it on some modern third-rail 
> electric trains (eg those used on lines out of Victoria, Waterloo and 
> London Bridge in London); it was not present on the older DC-motored 
> trains.

Yes, the technology is very much related - the modern trains use AC 
motors and IGBT based controllers, which can take DC input (as on LUL) 
and convert it. The same sort of technology is used in hybrid and 
electric cars - at least decent ones, excluding the very cheap G-Wiz we 
see these days :-)

-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

Petert wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:26:30 +0100, John Wright <""john\"@no spam
> here.com"> wrote:
> 
>>>> It's entirely likely that the vans have lower gearing, since there's an 
>>>> expectation of heavier loads.
>>> Yes, I suppose the gearing may have an effect.
>> Engineers, being perverse, could make it worse by using straight cut 
>> gears :-)
> 
> What a good idea - less power loss

But very noisy :-)

-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

"Adrian C" <email@here.invalid> wrote in message 
news:7k3rhoF373a6mU2@mid.individual.net...
> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound 
>> deadening or silencer quality on vans that they do on cars?
>
> If van's were things of silence there would be people causing rather 
> deadly accidents with them.
>
That was one of the arguments for getting rid of trolleybuses in the 
'50s and '60s.

"Bod"  wrote in message 
news:7k57qcF37bs83U1@mid.individual.net...
> John Wright > wrote:
>> Bod wrote:
>>> John Wright > wrote:
>>>> Adrian C wrote:
>>>>> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound 
>>>>>> deadening or silencer quality on vans that they do on cars?
>>>>>
>>>>> If van's were things of silence there would be people causing 
>>>>> rather deadly accidents with them.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, blind support groups are backing legislation (in the US 
>>>> anyway) which will make otherwise silent (in city running) hybrid 
>>>> cars make a noise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Is it a good idea to allow blind people to drive !?  :-)
>>
>> To answer your question directly no. But these are groups that 
>> would call themselves pedestrians. (Oh how I hate that abbreviation 
>> used by cyclists more than anything else of peds)
>>
>>
> That apart, I thought that electric cars/hybrids made a sort of 
> whining sound?
>
No. That's the green drivers of such vehicles.

On 2009-10-21, Ian  wrote:
>
> "Adrian C" <email@here.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:7k3rhoF373a6mU2@mid.individual.net...
>> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> Don't manufacturers bother to use the same amount of sound 
>>> deadening or silencer quality on vans that they do on cars?
>>
>> If van's were things of silence there would be people causing rather 
>> deadly accidents with them.
>>
> That was one of the arguments for getting rid of trolleybuses in the 
> '50s and '60s. 

Have you ever visited Zermatt, in Switzerland? Cars are banned there, other
than those belonging to residents, and all the local deliveries are done
with electric buggies. It's incredibly dangerous, since the buggies are mixed
in with the pedestrians, who expect there to be no vehicles, and the buggies
are more-or-less silent ...


-- 
            What did happen on the 9th of November, anyway?
                    http://hyperangry.blogspot.com/
       [email me, if you must, at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 21 Oct 2009 11:57:15 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>Have you ever visited Zermatt, in Switzerland? Cars are banned there, other
>than those belonging to residents, and all the local deliveries are done
>with electric buggies. It's incredibly dangerous, since the buggies are mixed
>in with the pedestrians, who expect there to be no vehicles, and the buggies
>are more-or-less silent ...

Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large railway
stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well as their
ears.

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2009 11:57:15 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> Have you ever visited Zermatt, in Switzerland? Cars are banned there, other
>> than those belonging to residents, and all the local deliveries are done
>> with electric buggies. It's incredibly dangerous, since the buggies are mixed
>> in with the pedestrians, who expect there to be no vehicles, and the buggies
>> are more-or-less silent ...
> 
> Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large railway
> stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well as their
> ears.
> 
> B2003
> 
If the people driving the vehicles were looking 
properly, there shouldn't be a problem.

Bod

"Bod"  wrote in message 
news:7k8e6bF354fkvU1@mid.individual.net...
> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> On 21 Oct 2009 11:57:15 GMT
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> Have you ever visited Zermatt, in Switzerland? Cars are banned there, 
>>> other
>>> than those belonging to residents, and all the local deliveries are done
>>> with electric buggies. It's incredibly dangerous, since the buggies are 
>>> mixed
>>> in with the pedestrians, who expect there to be no vehicles, and the 
>>> buggies
>>> are more-or-less silent ...
>>
>> Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large railway
>> stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well as their
>> ears.
>>
>> B2003
>>
> If the people driving the vehicles were looking properly, there shouldn't 
> be a problem.

And also if the people straying into the path of the vehicles were looking 
properly, there shouldn't be a problem. Both the drivers and the pedestrians 
have an equal part in preventing the accident.

The real problem, by the sound of it, is that pedestrians are expecting the 
road to be pedestrianised and therefore to have no traffic, whereas it does 
have traffic and hence the pedestrians need to apply normal "kerb drill" 
rules before moving from the pavement onto the road.

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2009 11:57:15 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> Have you ever visited Zermatt, in Switzerland? Cars are banned there, other
>> than those belonging to residents, and all the local deliveries are done
>> with electric buggies. It's incredibly dangerous, since the buggies are mixed
>> in with the pedestrians, who expect there to be no vehicles, and the buggies
>> are more-or-less silent ...
> 
> Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large railway
> stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well as their
> ears.

Tricky if you are blind - which is where most of the campaign for silent 
vehicles to make more noise seems to come from. At least with electric 
carts on railway stations the drivers can be taught to avoid people.

-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:25:28 +0100
John Wright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote:
>> Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large railway
>> stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well as their
>> ears.
>
>Tricky if you are blind - which is where most of the campaign for silent 
>vehicles to make more noise seems to come from. At least with electric 

If you're going to use that argument then its a bit tricky listening out for 
them if your deaf.

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:25:28 +0100
> John Wright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote:
>>> Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large railway
>>> stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well as their
>>> ears.
>> Tricky if you are blind - which is where most of the campaign for silent 
>> vehicles to make more noise seems to come from. At least with electric 
> 
> If you're going to use that argument then its a bit tricky listening out for 
> them if your deaf.
> 
> B2003
> 
> 
That's why I said it should be down to the driver, 
  if he's paying proper attention and uses his 
horn (when necessary).
Even sighted or deaf people can be easily 
distracted at railway stations, ie: checking train 
times, looking for the correct platform etc.The 
driver should be going slow and careful enough to 
avoid distracted commuters.

Bod

"Bod"  wrote in message 
news:7k8p6gF383dghU1@mid.individual.net...
> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> On 21 Oct 2009 14:36:40 GMT
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large 
>>>>> railway
>>>>> stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well 
>>>>> as their
>>>>> ears.
>>> Boltar's killfiled here, but I'll answer this because I'm in a 
>>> good
>>> mood.
>>
>> Gutted. Poor old Fatman , still afraid of an argument.
>>
>>> The buggies at railways stations have beepers and rotating orange 
>>> lights and
>>> are driven slowly and carefully. The buggies in Zermatt have none 
>>> of these
>>> attributes.
>>>
>>> And saying "People should use their eyes ..." is all very well, 
>>> but what
>>> do you do when they don't?
>>
>> Plenty don't use their eyes or ears when crossing a normal road or 
>> level
>> crossing and get hit. So what. People should take responsibility 
>> for their
>> own actions, not expect the world to babysit them.
>>
>> B2003
>>
> How many people get hit by electric trucks on railway platforms?  I 
> would guess that the times that happens is very low.
> If true, then it means the drivers are doing their job.
> I can imagine that if they knocked someone over, that their job 
> would be on the line.
> I bet they are taught to assume that everyone is possibly deaf or 
> blind (to be sure).
>
More effective for the drivers to be taught to assume that everyone is 
stupid, for sure.

Ian wrote:
> "Bod"  wrote in message 
> news:7k8p6gF383dghU1@mid.individual.net...
>> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> On 21 Oct 2009 14:36:40 GMT
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large 
>>>>>> railway
>>>>>> stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well 
>>>>>> as their
>>>>>> ears.
>>>> Boltar's killfiled here, but I'll answer this because I'm in a 
>>>> good
>>>> mood.
>>> Gutted. Poor old Fatman , still afraid of an argument.
>>>
>>>> The buggies at railways stations have beepers and rotating orange 
>>>> lights and
>>>> are driven slowly and carefully. The buggies in Zermatt have none 
>>>> of these
>>>> attributes.
>>>>
>>>> And saying "People should use their eyes ..." is all very well, 
>>>> but what
>>>> do you do when they don't?
>>> Plenty don't use their eyes or ears when crossing a normal road or 
>>> level
>>> crossing and get hit. So what. People should take responsibility 
>>> for their
>>> own actions, not expect the world to babysit them.
>>>
>>> B2003
>>>
>> How many people get hit by electric trucks on railway platforms?  I 
>> would guess that the times that happens is very low.
>> If true, then it means the drivers are doing their job.
>> I can imagine that if they knocked someone over, that their job 
>> would be on the line.
>> I bet they are taught to assume that everyone is possibly deaf or 
>> blind (to be sure).
>>
> More effective for the drivers to be taught to assume that everyone is 
> stupid, for sure. 
> 
> 
No, treat others as *you* would expect to be treated.

Bod

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:25:28 +0100
> John Wright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote:
>>> Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large railway
>>> stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well as their
>>> ears.
>> Tricky if you are blind - which is where most of the campaign for silent 
>> vehicles to make more noise seems to come from. At least with electric 
> 
> If you're going to use that argument then its a bit tricky listening out for 
> them if your deaf.

I don't know if this appeared on whatever you use as a news server. It 
certainly never did on the one I posted it on! If you did I apologise 
for posting it twice.

Deaf people have never made any argument about these. Its only blind 
people who do. Deaf people often make much of the extra sensitivity of 
their other senses. The more militant might say we are the disabled ones 
since we can hear.

-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:06:03 +0100
> John Wright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote:
>> their other senses. The more militant might say we are the disabled ones 
>> since we can hear.
> 
> You mean the more deluded ones in denial. I remember on the news years ago some
> deaf couple refusing to let their little kid have some sort of cochlea aid 
> inserted because of some guff about him not growing up with deaf culture or 
> some sort self justifying garbage. Those sorts of parents along with jehovahs
> witnesses should be locked up for child abuse and the key thrown away. 

Indeed, the most extreme part of the deaf rights groups, they appear to 
think their culture is superior to anyone elses. I've got news for them...

-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

On 17 Oct 2009 10:04:31 GMT, Adrian  wrote:

>Peter  gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying:
>
>>>> Oddly IME the fuel economy of car derived vans has traditionally been
>>>> significantly worse than the cars they were based on
>
>>>Do you think aerodynamics might have something to do with that?
>
>> No.
>> 
>> I suspect the aerodynamic efficiency of a Fiesta van is the same as that
>> of a Fiesta car, similarly for the Nova van/car etc
>
>OK, my misunderstanding - I thought you were referring to (f'rinstance) 
>Vauxhall Combos or Transit Connects.
>
>It's entirely likely that the vans have lower gearing, since there's an 
>expectation of heavier loads.

Yes, I suppose the gearing may have an effect.

-- 
Cheers

Peter

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:14:53 +0100
> Bod  wrote:
>> My point is, that if sound were a real problem for 
>> blind people, then why haven't they pushed for 
>> bicycles to make a noise.
> 
> If bikes were invented today they probably would be. There are always going
> to be self indulgent pressure groups who claim to speak for the majority
> who spineless politicians and law makers bend over backwards for. There seems 
> to be something in the political psyche that makes it wave a white flag in 
> front of anyone who makes a big enough noise no matter how little popular 
> support they have.
> 
> Personally I think the reduction in noise from the introduction of electric
> cars would be one of the benefits , though bearing in mind that at any
> reasonable speed the tyres make up the majority of the noise coming from a car.
> Even so , city centres would be much nicer places especially without the
> diesel death rattle we have everywhere now.
> 
> B2003
> 

Yes, *less* noise is preferable (generally), 
especially in todays ever noisier environment.

Bod

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:26:30 +0100, John Wright <""john\"@no spam
here.com"> wrote:

>>> It's entirely likely that the vans have lower gearing, since there's an 
>>> expectation of heavier loads.
>> 
>> Yes, I suppose the gearing may have an effect.
>
>Engineers, being perverse, could make it worse by using straight cut 
>gears :-)

What a good idea - less power loss
-- 
Cheers

Peter

On 2009-10-21, John Wright <""> wrote:
> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> On 21 Oct 2009 11:57:15 GMT
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> Have you ever visited Zermatt, in Switzerland? Cars are banned there, other
>>> than those belonging to residents, and all the local deliveries are done
>>> with electric buggies. It's incredibly dangerous, since the buggies are mixed
>>> in with the pedestrians, who expect there to be no vehicles, and the buggies
>>> are more-or-less silent ...
>> 
>> Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large railway
>> stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well as their
>> ears.

Boltar's killfiled here, but I'll answer this because I'm in a good
mood.

The buggies at railways stations have beepers and rotating orange lights and
are driven slowly and carefully. The buggies in Zermatt have none of these
attributes.

And saying "People should use their eyes ..." is all very well, but what
do you do when they don't?

-- 
            What did happen on the 9th of November, anyway?
                    http://hyperangry.blogspot.com/
       [email me, if you must, at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 21 Oct 2009 14:36:40 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large railway
>>> stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well as their
>>> ears.
>
>Boltar's killfiled here, but I'll answer this because I'm in a good
>mood.

Gutted. Poor old Fatman , still afraid of an argument.

>The buggies at railways stations have beepers and rotating orange lights and
>are driven slowly and carefully. The buggies in Zermatt have none of these
>attributes.
>
>And saying "People should use their eyes ..." is all very well, but what
>do you do when they don't?

Plenty don't use their eyes or ears when crossing a normal road or level
crossing and get hit. So what. People should take responsibility for their
own actions, not expect the world to babysit them.

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2009 14:36:40 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Hows that different to the electric carts used in a lot of large railway
>>>> stations in this country? People should use their eyes as well as their
>>>> ears.
>> Boltar's killfiled here, but I'll answer this because I'm in a good
>> mood.
> 
> Gutted. Poor old Fatman , still afraid of an argument.
> 
>> The buggies at railways stations have beepers and rotating orange lights and
>> are driven slowly and carefully. The buggies in Zermatt have none of these
>> attributes.
>>
>> And saying "People should use their eyes ..." is all very well, but what
>> do you do when they don't?
> 
> Plenty don't use their eyes or ears when crossing a normal road or level
> crossing and get hit. So what. People should take responsibility for their
> own actions, not expect the world to babysit them.
> 
> B2003
> 
How many people get hit by electric trucks on 
railway platforms?  I would guess that the times 
that happens is very low.
If true, then it means the drivers are doing their 
job.
I can imagine that if they knocked someone over, 
that their job would be on the line.
I bet they are taught to assume that everyone is 
possibly deaf or blind (to be sure).

Bod

In uk.rec.driving, Huge wrote:
>Have you ever visited Zermatt, in Switzerland? Cars are banned there, other
>than those belonging to residents, and all the local deliveries are done
>with electric buggies. It's incredibly dangerous, since the buggies are mixed
>in with the pedestrians, who expect there to be no vehicles, and the buggies
>are more-or-less silent ...

Can you tell us about the accident rate?

-- 
Mike Barnes

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:06:03 +0100
John Wright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote:
>their other senses. The more militant might say we are the disabled ones 
>since we can hear.

You mean the more deluded ones in denial. I remember on the news years ago some
deaf couple refusing to let their little kid have some sort of cochlea aid 
inserted because of some guff about him not growing up with deaf culture or 
some sort self justifying garbage. Those sorts of parents along with jehovahs
witnesses should be locked up for child abuse and the key thrown away. 

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:06:03 +0100
> John Wright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote:
>> their other senses. The more militant might say we are the disabled ones 
>> since we can hear.
> 
> You mean the more deluded ones in denial. I remember on the news years ago some
> deaf couple refusing to let their little kid have some sort of cochlea aid 
> inserted because of some guff about him not growing up with deaf culture or 
> some sort self justifying garbage.

Yup, come across that as well. It's quite widespread :-(

Google "cochlear implant militant" for plenty of flames and PC flannel.

-- 
Adrian C