2.0 Engine.
December-6th-2002 | 05:31 PM
#46
Thread Killa'
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 326
From: k-town, USA
Re: Re: fascist *****-heads!
Originally posted by cablemirc
you know, i might stop for two seconds to consider all of this,
*** Apparently you did stop for likely more than a few seconds**
...but for one thing. your maturity level obviously needs work, and your inability to let things go and remain argumenative by calling us names and littering our board with such words as "facist *****-heads" means you have not the capacity or intention to discuss anything rationally.
*** I doubt you have the qualifications necessary to make this determination merely from a Forum post. Additionally your attempt at polarization utilizing "our board" and "us" versus me is shameful attempt to better your own image at the expense of someone else. Talk about primitive... ***
...while the babble you spit out above _does_ at some points slightly resemble something approximating intelligence, i knew from your thread topic that it could'nt possibly be any more than the equal of random babbling of a jungle baboon. sure, it _sounded_ like a word, but i think we all know better.
*** 1st, speak for yourself, not everyone else. 2nd, clarity is best served with proper punctuation and not in the form of a run-on sentence (which reduces to "babble" at its finest). 3rd, my topic title is not levelled at the Forum members (unless you happen to be a fascist *****-head). It was aimed at those who locked the damn thread. In that regard, I apologize to the Forum at large ***
if this level of primitive communication is something you can degrade yourself to, and yet we still continue to somehow disappoint you, and our moderators aren't even as smart to you as babbling baboons, then you did'nt need us anyways, and i bid you good riddance and farewell, sir.
*** yep, the typical answer, chase away those to whom you disagree. BTW, quit knocking the baboons, you act as if you are superior to them in some way ***
g'day
cablemirc
you know, i might stop for two seconds to consider all of this,
*** Apparently you did stop for likely more than a few seconds**
...but for one thing. your maturity level obviously needs work, and your inability to let things go and remain argumenative by calling us names and littering our board with such words as "facist *****-heads" means you have not the capacity or intention to discuss anything rationally.
*** I doubt you have the qualifications necessary to make this determination merely from a Forum post. Additionally your attempt at polarization utilizing "our board" and "us" versus me is shameful attempt to better your own image at the expense of someone else. Talk about primitive... ***
...while the babble you spit out above _does_ at some points slightly resemble something approximating intelligence, i knew from your thread topic that it could'nt possibly be any more than the equal of random babbling of a jungle baboon. sure, it _sounded_ like a word, but i think we all know better.
*** 1st, speak for yourself, not everyone else. 2nd, clarity is best served with proper punctuation and not in the form of a run-on sentence (which reduces to "babble" at its finest). 3rd, my topic title is not levelled at the Forum members (unless you happen to be a fascist *****-head). It was aimed at those who locked the damn thread. In that regard, I apologize to the Forum at large ***
if this level of primitive communication is something you can degrade yourself to, and yet we still continue to somehow disappoint you, and our moderators aren't even as smart to you as babbling baboons, then you did'nt need us anyways, and i bid you good riddance and farewell, sir.
*** yep, the typical answer, chase away those to whom you disagree. BTW, quit knocking the baboons, you act as if you are superior to them in some way ***
g'day
cablemirc
December-6th-2002 | 05:52 PM
#47
Thread Killa'
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 326
From: k-town, USA
Ok, so I was busy replying to the above post, while PseudorealityX' was posting... (good job, psuedo!!)
Apparently the thread title was offensive (but you gotta' admit, it's a decent attention-getter). I do apologize (again) for any ill feelings generated. That was not my intent; all I desired was to correct misinformation, but I got locked out by TheMan (no hard feelings, please) during my attempt to re-open the issue. Indeed, that ticked me off!
Sorry guys, but i really like science, nature and political discourse. Just as it matters to you about the accuracy of statements concerning the beloved Mazdas, the accuracy within the realms I stated above is important to me.
One last thought about lighter engine blocks: Given that the effects of inertia increase with mass, then, one advantage of weight reduction (besides efficiency) would be the handling/braking aspects.
BTW, thanks for letting me rant!
Apparently the thread title was offensive (but you gotta' admit, it's a decent attention-getter). I do apologize (again) for any ill feelings generated. That was not my intent; all I desired was to correct misinformation, but I got locked out by TheMan (no hard feelings, please) during my attempt to re-open the issue. Indeed, that ticked me off!
Sorry guys, but i really like science, nature and political discourse. Just as it matters to you about the accuracy of statements concerning the beloved Mazdas, the accuracy within the realms I stated above is important to me.
One last thought about lighter engine blocks: Given that the effects of inertia increase with mass, then, one advantage of weight reduction (besides efficiency) would be the handling/braking aspects.
BTW, thanks for letting me rant!
December-10th-2002 | 03:35 PM
#48
Protege Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 240
From: Orange County, CA
I must go off topic for one more post. I wanted to say that I'm impressed that Jesse took the time to crack a physics book (something I was too lazy to do) and admitted his mistake upon finding the proper equation. That is not easy to do (even on the web). I'm also impressed that this thread was reopened. You forum moderators are OK in my book. 
Just my $.02
Just my $.02
December-10th-2002 | 08:13 PM
#50
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 265
From: New York City
Pseudo,
You weren't wrong. If I recall correctly (I don't wanna reread the thread), the discussion was about how mass affects gas mileage, not anything else, no?
If you made a Suburban to have the same drag coefficient as the MazPro (by making the Suburban bullet-shaped
and giving it same tires), your previous argument still holds.
As Pseudo said before, F=ma. When acceleration is zero, mass does NOT matter.
Mass does not affect gas mileage at 0 acceleration cruising. Thus, the only thing that matters at 0 acceleration cruising is drag (from wind and road)
You weren't wrong. If I recall correctly (I don't wanna reread the thread), the discussion was about how mass affects gas mileage, not anything else, no?
If you made a Suburban to have the same drag coefficient as the MazPro (by making the Suburban bullet-shaped
and giving it same tires), your previous argument still holds.As Pseudo said before, F=ma. When acceleration is zero, mass does NOT matter.
Mass does not affect gas mileage at 0 acceleration cruising. Thus, the only thing that matters at 0 acceleration cruising is drag (from wind and road)
December-10th-2002 | 08:54 PM
#51
Protege Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 240
From: Orange County, CA
Originally posted by dynamho
Pseudo,
You weren't wrong. If I recall correctly (I don't wanna reread the thread), the discussion was about how mass affects gas mileage, not anything else, no?
If you made a Suburban to have the same drag coefficient as the MazPro (by making the Suburban bullet-shaped and giving it same tires), your previous argument still holds.
As Pseudo said before, F=ma. When acceleration is zero, mass does NOT matter.
Mass does not affect gas mileage at 0 acceleration cruising. Thus, the only thing that matters at 0 acceleration cruising is drag (from wind and road)
Pseudo,
You weren't wrong. If I recall correctly (I don't wanna reread the thread), the discussion was about how mass affects gas mileage, not anything else, no?
If you made a Suburban to have the same drag coefficient as the MazPro (by making the Suburban bullet-shaped
and giving it same tires), your previous argument still holds.As Pseudo said before, F=ma. When acceleration is zero, mass does NOT matter.
Mass does not affect gas mileage at 0 acceleration cruising. Thus, the only thing that matters at 0 acceleration cruising is drag (from wind and road)
December-10th-2002 | 11:22 PM
#52
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 401
From: Toronto
Originally posted by Scarmiglio
Do everyone a favor and go back and read Pseudo's quote. F=ma does not apply in the REAL WORLD! Besides, we don't really care how much force the Suburban has vs. the Protege (the F in your equation). We can measure the force at any given time, and the Suburban will have more, but it's engine is exerting more horsepower (and using more gas) to maintain its force, even at 0 acceleration. Drag Coefficient isn't the only consideration here. Gravity & friction also come into play.
Do everyone a favor and go back and read Pseudo's quote. F=ma does not apply in the REAL WORLD! Besides, we don't really care how much force the Suburban has vs. the Protege (the F in your equation). We can measure the force at any given time, and the Suburban will have more, but it's engine is exerting more horsepower (and using more gas) to maintain its force, even at 0 acceleration. Drag Coefficient isn't the only consideration here. Gravity & friction also come into play.
Exerting more horsepower? Out of exhaust pipe?To maintain what force? Force of ejaculate?
This is getting confusing! I am no physics expert, but this thread is just full of D grade student's fluff, let's just go back to CAI discussions, m'kay?
Pseudo was talking about CRUISING on FLAT surface, ignoring drag-how more simple can it be. Rolling resistance and inertia will both grow with increrase in car weight, but rate of growth will be different. Didn't study derivatives yet? You need to find rate of change of intertia per unit of change in mass and rate of change of rolling resistance for SAME change in mass and compare two values. Plot them if you're really smart. Then quickly run to your PC and post them here...I majored in Mathematics for Business in university, but I managed to forget most of that stuff...but I still have my common sense...
Alex
December-11th-2002 | 02:14 AM
#53
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 265
From: New York City
F=ma does not apply in the REAL WORLD!Originally posted by Scarmiglio
You mean there are other factors to consider apart from F=ma, because if you mean what you said, you just slapped Newton.
Besides, we don't really care how much force the Suburban has vs. the Protege (the F in your equation).Originally posted by Scarmiglio
The F in the equation doesn't directly signify Suburban's force nor the Pro's force. The F in the equation is really meant to represent the force needed to sustain the acceleration for the given mass.
We can measure the force at any given time, and the Suburban will have more, but it's engine is exerting more horsepowerOriginally posted by Scarmiglio
The way you framed this statement is perplexing, but I'm assuming you mean that Suburban has a stronger engine. Anyone would be a fool to disagree with you here.
(and using more gas) to maintain its force, even at 0 acceleration.Originally posted by Scarmiglio
F=ma. Zero times anything is zero. Basic arithmetic. There is no force required to maintain constant speed (in a vacuum anyway). The ONLY thing an engine is burning gas for at constant speed in the real world is to overcome friction. Drag is friction. Gravity causes friction between tires and road.
So what Pseudo is saying is that aerodynamics is the major player here in determining gas mileage at constant velocity. He corrected himself, but that doesn't mean you're correct.
You mean there are other factors to consider apart from F=ma, because if you mean what you said, you just slapped Newton.
Besides, we don't really care how much force the Suburban has vs. the Protege (the F in your equation).Originally posted by Scarmiglio
The F in the equation doesn't directly signify Suburban's force nor the Pro's force. The F in the equation is really meant to represent the force needed to sustain the acceleration for the given mass.
We can measure the force at any given time, and the Suburban will have more, but it's engine is exerting more horsepowerOriginally posted by Scarmiglio
The way you framed this statement is perplexing, but I'm assuming you mean that Suburban has a stronger engine. Anyone would be a fool to disagree with you here.
(and using more gas) to maintain its force, even at 0 acceleration.Originally posted by Scarmiglio
F=ma. Zero times anything is zero. Basic arithmetic. There is no force required to maintain constant speed (in a vacuum anyway). The ONLY thing an engine is burning gas for at constant speed in the real world is to overcome friction. Drag is friction. Gravity causes friction between tires and road.
So what Pseudo is saying is that aerodynamics is the major player here in determining gas mileage at constant velocity. He corrected himself, but that doesn't mean you're correct.
December-11th-2002 | 02:37 AM
#54
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 265
From: New York City
Suburban and Pro rolling downhill
BTW, Scarmiglio by my previous post I don't mean that you're wrong either. 
Regarding the Suburban and Pro rolling downhill, think of the experiment where you drop a feather and a hammer in a vacuum. They will fall at the same speed. Why?
F=ma where in this case, acceleration is gravity.
So again, it comes down to friction. Whichever car has less friction will roll down quicker. Mass is irrelevant.
Regarding the Suburban and Pro rolling downhill, think of the experiment where you drop a feather and a hammer in a vacuum. They will fall at the same speed. Why?
F=ma where in this case, acceleration is gravity.
So again, it comes down to friction. Whichever car has less friction will roll down quicker. Mass is irrelevant.
December-11th-2002 | 06:07 AM
#56
Protege Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 190
From: Ontario, Canada
Okay some people need to gead back to physics class.
There is no way a heavier car can be more efficient than a lighter car.
First of all inertia is not a measurable value. What people here are referring to as intertia should really be referred to as momentum.
Inertia describes Newton's first law: Objects in motion tend to stay in motion and objects at rest will tend to stay at rest only if they are not being acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Basically what the law says is that anything that is moving that is not being acted upon by an outside force will keep moving forever. This is a really basic but very important point. Inertia does not really apply to a moving vehicle on earth because there will always be an outside force acting upon the vehicle be it drag or friction.
Momentum is mass times velocity. A heavier car will have more momentum than a lighter car. But this doesn't make a heavier car use less gas than a lighter car.
What we need to consider is the law of conservation of energy. What this means is energy cannot be created or destroyed, just converted from one form to another. Basically this just kills the idea of heavier car getting better milage than a lighter car.
When we need to move a vehicle from point A to point B, we need energy! A heavier car will always require more energy to move than a lighter car even if it is on a super flat road with no hills. A heavier car does have more momentum than a lighter car but it will take more energy to create that extra momentum.
There is no way a heavier car can be more efficient than a lighter car.
First of all inertia is not a measurable value. What people here are referring to as intertia should really be referred to as momentum.
Inertia describes Newton's first law: Objects in motion tend to stay in motion and objects at rest will tend to stay at rest only if they are not being acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Basically what the law says is that anything that is moving that is not being acted upon by an outside force will keep moving forever. This is a really basic but very important point. Inertia does not really apply to a moving vehicle on earth because there will always be an outside force acting upon the vehicle be it drag or friction.
Momentum is mass times velocity. A heavier car will have more momentum than a lighter car. But this doesn't make a heavier car use less gas than a lighter car.
What we need to consider is the law of conservation of energy. What this means is energy cannot be created or destroyed, just converted from one form to another. Basically this just kills the idea of heavier car getting better milage than a lighter car.
When we need to move a vehicle from point A to point B, we need energy! A heavier car will always require more energy to move than a lighter car even if it is on a super flat road with no hills. A heavier car does have more momentum than a lighter car but it will take more energy to create that extra momentum.
Last edited by pollax; December-11th-2002 at 06:12 AM.
December-11th-2002 | 06:29 AM
#57
Protege Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 190
From: Ontario, Canada
So again, it comes down to friction. Whichever car has less friction will roll down quicker. Mass is irrelevant.
Friction = mass x coefficient of friction. Without mass you have no friction.
but it's engine is exerting more horsepower (and using more gas) to maintain its force, even at 0 acceleration.
Last edited by pollax; December-11th-2002 at 06:31 AM.
December-11th-2002 | 06:30 AM
#58
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 32
From: Los Angeles
just cause im done with finals i have time for stuff like this...
................^ Fn (natual force)
................|
Fd + Fr<--+-->Fv (force of the vehicle)
................|
................v mg
Power=Force x velocity
ma=(force of the vehicle) - (force of drag) - (force of firction) = 0 since acceleration is Zero.
so...
Fv=Fd+Fr
------------------------
Fd=-b(velocity) (note: we will just approximate at 700 Newtons)
Fr=uFn
Fr=umg (really not this, and more of a torque thing, but still relies on the normal force, this is for simplicity)
Fv=-b(velocity)+umg
Power=Fv (velocity)
Power=(-b(velocity) + umg)velocity
------------------------------------------------
So lets just do some estimates now:
P5 Mass= 1200 kg
-bv lets just etimate at 700N for both cars.
lets say we are going at 20m/s
say u=.2
Power=(700N + .2 (1200 kg )(10 m/s^2))20m/s
Power=62,000 Watts = 83 horsepower to maintain 0 acceleration at 20 m/s (around 80 km/h)
----
Suburban mass = 2400 kg
Power= 147 hp needed to keep 0 acceleration at 20 m/s (around 80 km/h)
--------------------------------------------
Now, i dont know how to convert that into milage, but it just says the suburban needs more power to maintain that speed.
Brought to you by your neighborhood college student that just took his physics 1a final and is getting around 70% in the class. hahaha. There may be problems in my simplifications, but i think the relationship still holds.
................^ Fn (natual force)
................|
Fd + Fr<--+-->Fv (force of the vehicle)
................|
................v mg
Power=Force x velocity
ma=(force of the vehicle) - (force of drag) - (force of firction) = 0 since acceleration is Zero.
so...
Fv=Fd+Fr
------------------------
Fd=-b(velocity) (note: we will just approximate at 700 Newtons)
Fr=uFn
Fr=umg (really not this, and more of a torque thing, but still relies on the normal force, this is for simplicity)
Fv=-b(velocity)+umg
Power=Fv (velocity)
Power=(-b(velocity) + umg)velocity
------------------------------------------------
So lets just do some estimates now:
P5 Mass= 1200 kg
-bv lets just etimate at 700N for both cars.
lets say we are going at 20m/s
say u=.2
Power=(700N + .2 (1200 kg )(10 m/s^2))20m/s
Power=62,000 Watts = 83 horsepower to maintain 0 acceleration at 20 m/s (around 80 km/h)
----
Suburban mass = 2400 kg
Power= 147 hp needed to keep 0 acceleration at 20 m/s (around 80 km/h)
--------------------------------------------
Now, i dont know how to convert that into milage, but it just says the suburban needs more power to maintain that speed.
Brought to you by your neighborhood college student that just took his physics 1a final and is getting around 70% in the class. hahaha. There may be problems in my simplifications, but i think the relationship still holds.
Last edited by uclaP5; December-11th-2002 at 06:34 AM.
December-11th-2002 | 10:09 AM
#59
Trogdor!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 327
From: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Here is another analogy for you guys having a tough time with the zero acceleration thing:
Two same helicopters are flying straight up at a constant speed(zero accel): which uses more energy, the heavy one or the lighter one?
Now think of rolling resistance as gravity, both of these things want to slow the vehicle down. The heavier the vehicle, the more energy it needs to use even to keep it going at a constant velocity up or sideways.
So to summarize, for gas mileage go Aluminum! And go Protege, king of the economy cars! Bring us your finest oils and antifreezes!
Two same helicopters are flying straight up at a constant speed(zero accel): which uses more energy, the heavy one or the lighter one?
Now think of rolling resistance as gravity, both of these things want to slow the vehicle down. The heavier the vehicle, the more energy it needs to use even to keep it going at a constant velocity up or sideways.
So to summarize, for gas mileage go Aluminum! And go Protege, king of the economy cars! Bring us your finest oils and antifreezes!
