Quote from speed1 :

Basically, in your world, nobody ever gets rear ended, or t-boned? You're essentially saying that its better to NOT know whats happening around you, which means that less situational awareness is better? I've never heard of that. I'd guess you always blind merge as well, because heaven forbid you even glance in the mirror.

basically, in my world, i have eyes all over the place. i've already avoided being rear ended a lot of times and at situations where being rear ended would be very dangerous.

also when merging it is more than obvious that i do check to see if i may do so.

you making such comments means to me you didn't exactly understand what i exactly mean saying that you need to be looking in the direction you are going.

i don't get on this forum to get into heated arguments with others. life is giving me enough of those without me looking for them. right now what i am saying is that 99% of the time a driver can not afford taking care of things that others should be taking care of... (that is, for example, checking in their rear when they are moving forward. even a 1 second glance throws away the perception of speed estimation you have for the front, there is much more lost than just that 1 second) even thought that is what i am doing whenever i am driving myself... i can not, however, give this advice to others. that is maybe why driving for me is a rather tiring matter. i have to be constantly aware of the traffic around me, always have a safe way out, always make sure that i can predict what others do, reckognize difficult or unknown situations... that's why i paid half a grand to take safe driving and advanced control classes and why i will do so again in the future as soon as i have money. i am not a good racer but i may say for myself that i am a very safe driver.

Last edited by george_tsiros, Mon 12 Oct 2009, 21:22.

most people aren't borgs, thus are using all their attention to look forward, not backward. i mean they don't have eyes on the back of their neck. because they aren't borgs... and borgs have eyes on the back of their neck... because they have machines and they... :/

when i drive, i need 101% attention towards the direction i am driving, because the moment i start paying attention towards where i am NOT driving means that there is an open possibility for something to **** up.

and then the excuse "i just looked for a split second in my rear mirror, honest! i'm a careful driver" somehow i think won't fly.

Last edited by george_tsiros, Mon 12 Oct 2009, 19:19.

the clutch, under normal operating conditions, is to be used at two times and at twose two times only.

to get the car in motion and to bring the car to a stop.
and change gears.

i say it in such a serious tone because i've seen people using or abusing the clutch in many cases where it is completely unecessary. (waiting at an uphill intersection, while cornering at low speeds,... ... well, just those two i remember now)

(of course i am not implying that "put it in neutral instead of pressing the clutch". stay in gear, foot off the clutch. if you don't need to be pressing the accelerator, put your foot above the brake. the cases where immediate braking will be required in an emergency are like 1000 times more probable than immediate acceleration)

Quote from bbman :

It might be because I happen to live in a country full of mountains, but what is so hard to understand at "when you're going downhill, keep it in gear or you're dead"?

you say that while quoting me... but i never said to disengage any gear. in fact, i said to do keep it in gear.

i'd say the idiot is the one who says "power sells motors, torque wins races" which to an ignorant person sounds like "the car you'll buy doesn't need to have power(torque), only torque(power)".

sounds like if you said "your computer doesn't need a graphics card if you don't play games" without giving the important detail that it is a "good/expensive" card that he doesn't need. that isn't exactly what you're supposed to say to someone who isn't very knowledgeable.

and in the end, if someone does not have the smarts to understand the underlying mechanics, it is better to tell him "when going down a hill, go slower than you would go on a level surface and use your brakes to keep a steady speed" instead of "when going down a hill you need to determine the optimum gear, revs and ratio of engine brake to foot brake, based on inclination, curvature, the brakes' performance, your engine's braking so as to drive safe, keep the brakes from overheating, keep the engine from overrevving..."

my 0.02

is the video supposed to be funny?

does the bathroom scene ever change?

Last edited by george_tsiros, Sat 10 Oct 2009, 18:07. Reason : no, it doesn't.

squared, but ok.

(x^2 is squared, e^x is exponential)

Quote from CSU1 :

Throttle + brake = unhappy clutch, no?

huh wha?


no!

just because one is a small number, doesn't mean that the content can't change completely just from one word.

and if a normal person can figure out what you wanted to say, without you actually saying it, why would i want to listen to you, then?... and why would you want to do the effort?

Quote from dougie-lampkin :

My car (which is VVT-i) has an idle cam, a "cruising" cam, and a fast cam position, meaning the saving is even better when the idle cam position is in operation

so when your engine is idling, it is using the 'idling cam'.

so it is using less fuel than when using the other cams...

... which is still more than when coasting downhill, in gear (0).

but the saving is even better?
lolwut?

did you notice what was said, that i replied to?

Quote from Kalev EST :

and you can engine brake meaning you don't have to use your brakes which saves them from wearing a little bit.

he said DON'T HAVE TO USE YOUR BRAKES.

can you now understand what i am saying that your engine is not there to brake? he says that you don't have to use the brakes! does that not imply that he is only using the engine to brake? is that good? he didn't say "don't have to only use your brakes" or "don't have to use the brakes a lot".

you are not paying enough attention i'm afraid.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Utter nonsense. Using engine braking doesn't increase engine wear. On a long downhill stretch, what would YOU prefer? Boiled brakes and falling over the edge of the mountain, or a tiny, tiny, tiny, immeasurable amount of additional wear to the other side of your gear train?

Anyone, and I do mean anyone, who says that engines are not for slowing down with is a bit thick.

you're getting on my nerves tristan. i surely hope you are not referring to me because if it were someone else i would ignore it, but i listen to your opinion and it would hurt me if you refered to me.

you think we don't have ridiculous inclinations here in greece? remember where one of the toughest rallies in the world was held. one was 1000 lakes... the other was?

of course in a steep long downhill road i would use a combination of braking, engine braking and relatively low speed. i would not either use only my brakes (which would demand my engine being near the idling speed which is not optimal for anyone) not only my engine (which would leave the brakes without work) and not go fast.

i can go sometime in a mountain road nearby and i can show how you i drive. then you can tell me if i am thick or not.

the amount of braking the engine can give is inexistant compared to the braking that your brakes can give. you can increase the engine braking if you downshift to twice the redline, asking the engine to rev to 12K and back, ok that way you will have a bit more braking.

also, going out of gear when going downhill is completely stupid. i can not for the life of me understand why would someone willingly do unnecessary motions to remove a method of controlling their car... for what? having the engine burn fuel idling? this brings to mind drivers who do stupid things like rev the engine while turning it off, use the starter motor for far longer than necessary, redline their engine to go faster etc

seriously

is it stupid day today? did i miss something?

Quote :

(theoretically, in reality you burn 0.000whatever litres per 100kms)

how would it do that?

what if i turn the engine off, but keep it in gear. does it still use even a drop?

because 1st it burns more fuel than coasting downhill and 2nd it's just stupid to corner while in neutral. can't explain it really but you lose the control that the accelerator gives you. weight balance and all that jazz.

Quote from Kalev EST :

I don't know about uphill but downhill I was always taught to keep it in gear. Modern cars don't use fuel when coasting in gear

it depends. i've heard if you go above some predetermined revs it will start injecting some fuel. something about above 3500ish.
but yeah, when coasting with relatively low revs you don't use any fuel.

Quote from Kalev EST :

and you can engine brake meaning you don't have to use your brakes which saves them from wearing a little bit.

your brakes are there to brake. your engine is not there to brake. your brakes are designed to wear out while using them as brakes. your engine is not.

what do you prefer? change your calipers a bit earlier or rebuild your engine a bit earlier?

Last edited by george_tsiros, Fri 9 Oct 2009, 15:04.

Quote from The Very End :

I at least can survive 8 beers, but then it's getting a chance play. Sometimes it goes ok, some other times...well let's just say it does not works out well...

are you implying you get drunk... on beer?

how the hell can you manage that?

sheridan's is a nice companion.

makes me corner smoothly, due to its smooth rich vanilla/cream/chocolate/coffee taste...

mmm...

i can think of at least 3 games that will rape any pc at high enough resolution.

his system's balance is determined by many things, not just the model of cpu and the model of gpu.

i don't say that it is balanced or that it isn't balanced. i say that you can't know.

Quote from fujiwara :

You do realize that your CPU can't keep up with follow those GTX 295, right ?

what do you know about his settings? if he is playing games at very high resolutions and 8x AA he needs loads more gpu power than cpu.

the psu is the component that usually dies first in a system, due to high strain on its components. it's the only analog (electronicaly speaking) component in a system and the closer you run it to its specs, the sooner it will die.

far better to have a psu that is too big for your system rather than edging towards the lowest you can get that still can handle it. i have a 130 W gpu, a 130 W cpu, 4 GB of 666 MHz ddr2, two HDDs and 5 12 cm fans. that's about 300 W peak. according to you i should get a 400 W psu?

your friend is risking a lot.

Quote :

750W for I7, not for quad.

huhuhu
you think there is such a big difference in power consumption between a core 2 quad and a i7 chip? it's a 50 W difference, generally. Some c2q have higher TDP than some i7 (q6600 is 105 W, i7 860 is 95 W...)

Last edited by george_tsiros, Wed 7 Oct 2009, 08:31.

to keep it short

even if they use it for 1 mile or 1 minute they still have a long enough time to mistreat the engine enough to ruin the opportunity i have to properly break it in.

thinking back about all this

it was a stupid topic, this topic that i started.

sadly, i can't follow it because the engine has already been used.

also, something that people misinterpret is that it is ok if it has been used "only for a little" and it remains 'new' if it has been used only for "a little".

let me see your reaction when, after ordering a sandwich, the one who prepared it for you takes a small bite out if it.

hey, it's just a small bite, right?

i'm slightly embarassed to note that you do not read my posts closely and i can tell that because i have that link in an earlier post.

someone who gets it O_O

a miracle?

ok fine

:irked:

(this was tongue in cheek.)

thanks to everyone for your input