> So far, my best guess is a short medium-caliber pistol cartridge case.
> Measurement suggests something like a 7.65 mm or .32.
I found an unfired 9mm luger shell in the road the other day, but no empty casings or little baggies of confectioner's sugar. Ah, but I would suggest that it could also be the closure but- ton from a shoddily made pair of denim class indicators.
Norman <invasivenor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 2, 2:06 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > A jolt and a sudden rear flat on a highway shoulder at about 20 > > mph: http://i33.tinypic.com/2d2ai6s.jpg
> > Quite a change from the usual goathead.
> > By coincidence, whatever gouged that round impression in the tire > > struck between two of the ten patches.
> > So far, my best guess is a short medium-caliber pistol cartridge > > case.
> > Measurement suggests something like a 7.65 mm or .32.
> I found an unfired 9mm luger shell in the road the other day, but no > empty casings or little baggies of confectioner's sugar. Ah, but I > would suggest that it could also be the closure but- ton from a > shoddily made pair of denim class indicators.
One of the "benefits" of living in goathead country. We don't have those here, although we do have a well distributed carpet of glass shards from beer bottles flung out of car windows.
carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > The small loop of a paper-clip shows the angle of the rip through the > kevlar belt tire:
Recently I had four flats in one month (normally one a year), despite my Kevlar-reinforced tires. Upon closer inspection I found that the rear tire was worn enough for the fabric to show in some places and the rubber to lift off the fabric in others. Once the rubber is off the cloth, the Kevlar reinforcement seems to be pretty useless... In my case the tire had seen about 12,000 km (7,500 mi) of abuse and had been on as the rear tire all the time, so I had no problem replacing it other than my dealer not having the appropriate size stocked ;-) Took a few days to order a new one, but now I'm happily back on the same brand and model.
As long as the tire is still mostly intact, the Kevlar seems to do a very good job - my daily commute includes an area full of glass shards from beer bottles (seems I'm not the only one) and one flat a year is really acceptable.
In my home country there has recently been a government-induced "green" shift to plastic bottles for soft drinks (no more cans...) - idiotically enforcing higher deposits for one-way bottles than for multi-reuse bottles. Still they did not manage to force the beer industry into plastic bottles - which I resent most, as this would eliminate *many* glass shards... Personally I don't care much for the beer, but Coca Cola has a long-established system of reusable plastic bottles here, so it is possible (even with highly corrosive drinks ;-)
> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > The small loop of a paper-clip shows the angle of the rip through the > > kevlar belt tire:
> Recently I had four flats in one month (normally one a year), despite my > Kevlar-reinforced tires. Upon closer inspection I found that the rear > tire was worn enough for the fabric to show in some places and the > rubber to lift off the fabric in others. Once the rubber is off the > cloth, the Kevlar reinforcement seems to be pretty useless... In my case > the tire had seen about 12,000 km (7,500 mi) of abuse and had been on as > the rear tire all the time, so I had no problem replacing it other than > my dealer not having the appropriate size stocked ;-) Took a few days to > order a new one, but now I'm happily back on the same brand and model.
> As long as the tire is still mostly intact, the Kevlar seems to do a > very good job - my daily commute includes an area full of glass shards > from beer bottles (seems I'm not the only one) and one flat a year is > really acceptable.
> In my home country there has recently been a government-induced "green" > shift to plastic bottles for soft drinks (no more cans...) - idiotically > enforcing higher deposits for one-way bottles than for multi-reuse > bottles. Still they did not manage to force the beer industry into > plastic bottles - which I resent most, as this would eliminate *many* > glass shards... Personally I don't care much for the beer, but Coca Cola > has a long-established system of reusable plastic bottles here, so it is > possible (even with highly corrosive drinks ;-)
I'm not much of one for meddlesome bureaucrats, and their terrific habit of worming into every aspect of my life, but (& anecdotally (this ain't science, Chuckles)) Michigan has a $0.05 or $0.10 deposit on bottles & cans & I swear that it reduces the glass on the roads by 90%.
If only there was some way to reduce similarly the amount of car window & headlight glass. I guess handing out free Glasgow smiles to every driver might partially ameliorate the problem.
Norman wrote: > I'm not much of one for meddlesome bureaucrats, and their > terrific habit of worming into every aspect of my life, but (& > anecdotally (this ain't science, Chuckles)) Michigan has a > $0.05 or $0.10 deposit on bottles & cans & I swear that it > reduces the glass on the roads by 90%.
Actually, we have a 15ct. deposit on beer bottles, but (from personal experience I feel obliged to say that) many adolescents are so drunk by the time they've sniffed the beer twice that they start throwing half-full(!) beer bottles. Sometimes even the boxes (and there's a more substantial deposit on those). So I doubt anyone who says that just increasing the deposit would help... The half-growns simply have too much money. Sadly so.
> If only there was some way to reduce similarly the amount > of car window & headlight glass. I guess handing out free > Glasgow smiles to every driver might partially ameliorate the > problem.
It might help to change vehicle codes to disallow windows while increasing the view from motor vehicles :-) That would certainly slow car traffic for a while ;-)
Honestly, I think that the view from many (not all) motor vehicles is much too restricted... Car drivers /feel/ *too* save... So, in my opinion, just increasing the window sizes would probably reduce accidents... Instead there are more and more vehicles that actually need a video system to enable the driver to "see" behind the car :-(
> So far, my best guess is a short medium-caliber pistol cartridge case.
> Measurement suggests something like a 7.65 mm or .32.
> Cheers,
> Carl Fogel
A newer tire might of withstood that impression...look at the bright side, now you can buy a new tire and not feel like you didn't get your moneys worth;)
> Bernhard Agthe <dark2s...@gmx.net> considered Thu, 05 Nov 2009 > 12:35:50 +0100 the perfect time to write:
> >Hi,
> >Norman wrote: > >> I'm not much of one for meddlesome bureaucrats, and their > >> terrific habit of worming into every aspect of my life, but (& > >> anecdotally (this ain't science, Chuckles)) Michigan has a > >> $0.05 or $0.10 deposit on bottles & cans & I swear that it > >> reduces the glass on the roads by 90%.
> >Actually, we have a 15ct. deposit on beer bottles, but (from personal > >experience I feel obliged to say that) many adolescents are so drunk by > >the time they've sniffed the beer twice that they start throwing > >half-full(!) beer bottles. Sometimes even the boxes (and there's a more > >substantial deposit on those). So I doubt anyone who says that just > >increasing the deposit would help... The half-growns simply have too > >much money. Sadly so.
I definitely still saw broken glass up there, don't get me wrong, but the prevalence was reduced astonishingly.
> >> If only there was some way to reduce similarly the amount > >> of car window & headlight glass. I guess handing out free > >> Glasgow smiles to every driver might partially ameliorate the > >> problem.
> >It might help to change vehicle codes to disallow windows while > >increasing the view from motor vehicles :-) That would certainly slow > >car traffic for a while ;-)
> >Honestly, I think that the view from many (not all) motor vehicles is > >much too restricted... Car drivers /feel/ *too* save... So, in my > >opinion, just increasing the window sizes would probably reduce > >accidents... Instead there are more and more vehicles that actually need > >a video system to enable the driver to "see" behind the car :-(
> And even in front of it - the front pillars on many vehicles are now > thick enough to hide an entire car behind if the driver is too lazy to > move their head. > These thick pillars are of course installed for safety! > Yeah, I can understand why they need such a strong vehicle, given that > they can't actually see well enough to avoid collisions anymore.
Speaking as someone who once drove heavy trucks to pay for my lifestyle (beer, cigars, & fried earth-apple sandwiches 8 times a day), an "A" pillar the size of a goat isn't really an excuse. If a body makes half an ef- fort (I know, that's asking a bit much from the college educated bloaters who roll from salad shop to burger barn) they can see what's around them. I never seemed to have a problem spotting empty shell casings or 10cm deck screws lying in the road from 2.5 meters above, but I can't see what their damn excuse is.
One of the driving schools (I for get which one) would glue a serving bowl to the hood of the automobile and put a tennis ball in it. If the ball rolled out, you were doing it wrong. Honestly, though, I'd suggest a small loop of piano wire around the seat-back which then goes around the driver's neck. The feedback is a bit more direct that way.
> Norman wrote: >> I'm not much of one for meddlesome bureaucrats, and their >> terrific habit of worming into every aspect of my life, but (& >> anecdotally (this ain't science, Chuckles)) Michigan has a >> $0.05 or $0.10 deposit on bottles & cans & I swear that it >> reduces the glass on the roads by 90%.
> Actually, we have a 15ct. deposit on beer bottles, but (from personal > experience I feel obliged to say that) many adolescents are so drunk by > the time they've sniffed the beer twice that they start throwing > half-full(!) beer bottles. Sometimes even the boxes (and there's a more > substantial deposit on those). So I doubt anyone who says that just > increasing the deposit would help... The half-growns simply have too > much money. Sadly so.
>> If only there was some way to reduce similarly the amount >> of car window & headlight glass. I guess handing out free >> Glasgow smiles to every driver might partially ameliorate the >> problem.
> It might help to change vehicle codes to disallow windows while > increasing the view from motor vehicles :-) That would certainly slow > car traffic for a while ;-)
> Honestly, I think that the view from many (not all) motor vehicles is > much too restricted... Car drivers /feel/ *too* save... So, in my > opinion, just increasing the window sizes would probably reduce > accidents... Instead there are more and more vehicles that actually need > a video system to enable the driver to "see" behind the car :-(
> > Norman wrote: > >> I'm not much of one for meddlesome bureaucrats, and their > >> terrific habit of worming into every aspect of my life, but (& > >> anecdotally (this ain't science, Chuckles)) Michigan has a > >> $0.05 or $0.10 deposit on bottles & cans & I swear that it > >> reduces the glass on the roads by 90%.
> > Actually, we have a 15ct. deposit on beer bottles, but (from personal > > experience I feel obliged to say that) many adolescents are so drunk by > > the time they've sniffed the beer twice that they start throwing > > half-full(!) beer bottles. Sometimes even the boxes (and there's a more > > substantial deposit on those). So I doubt anyone who says that just > > increasing the deposit would help... The half-growns simply have too > > much money. Sadly so.
> >> If only there was some way to reduce similarly the amount > >> of car window & headlight glass. I guess handing out free > >> Glasgow smiles to every driver might partially ameliorate the > >> problem.
> > It might help to change vehicle codes to disallow windows while > > increasing the view from motor vehicles :-) That would certainly slow > > car traffic for a while ;-)
> > Honestly, I think that the view from many (not all) motor vehicles is > > much too restricted... Car drivers /feel/ *too* save... So, in my > > opinion, just increasing the window sizes would probably reduce > > accidents... Instead there are more and more vehicles that actually need > > a video system to enable the driver to "see" behind the car :-(
Caterham still makes it (I believe, or they did as of a couple of years ago) as the "Super 7" with (again, old info) a Ford Contour 4 cylinder (not legal in the People's Republic of Western Nevada formerly known as California) of all things.
If I had to have a vehicle, and couldn't chuse a gl1000, that would be it. And a new mackintosh, obviously.
>Caterham still makes it (I believe, or they did as of a couple >of years ago) as the "Super 7" with (again, old info) a Ford >Contour 4 cylinder (not legal in the People's Republic of >Western Nevada formerly known as California) of all things.
Caterham 7s are still going. Over here they used Rover K-Series engines for quite a while, but are now on various Fords.
>> Caterham still makes it (I believe, or they did as of a couple >> of years ago) as the "Super 7" with (again, old info) a Ford >> Contour 4 cylinder (not legal in the People's Republic of >> Western Nevada formerly known as California) of all things.
> Caterham 7s are still going. Over here they used Rover K-Series engines for > quite a while, but are now on various Fords.
>>Caterham still makes it (I believe, or they did as of a couple >>of years ago) as the "Super 7" with (again, old info) a Ford >>Contour 4 cylinder (not legal in the People's Republic of >>Western Nevada formerly known as California) of all things.
>Caterham 7s are still going. Over here they used Rover K-Series engines for >quite a while, but are now on various Fords.
On 6 Nov, 00:51, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Clive George wrote: > > Caterham 7s are still going. Over here they used Rover K-Series engines for > > quite a while, but are now on various Fords.
Rover 16valve K series is a solid engine (given maintainence checks and avoiding the monkey fitter) which can output 100bhp/litre in normal aspiration (cored catalyst). I think the Sevens were happy on the 1.4litre. I think the 1.6 with greater torque would likely need longer legs to benefit such a lightweight vehicle. The Rover engine was so suitable because of its low mass.
|
