On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:48:54 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:15:55 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Rex" wrote in message

Fiestas were neat cars. I raced a ITB Pinto for several years.

Yeah, Fiestas were fun. They would have been neater if they had brakes.
d8-)

Or if they were easier to work on. They were one of the earlier
metricated Fords, IIRC, with a Pintoesque reputation in our Ford
dealership at the time.

Yeah, it helped to have very skinny fingers and a few custom-forged tools.

The guys who raced them came up with a number of tricks to make it easier.
My contribution was a small body alteration. With the engine removed (quite
easy to do), you take a 3-lb. maul and whack a big dent into the inside of
the right front wheel well. Then you could get the serpentine belt off
without removing the engine. g

I'll bet your front-end man loved you for that.

That reminds me of the early Mustang V-8 mods some folks did. The
dealer flat rate for a tuneup was 6.8 hours or something interesting
like that, including the engine R&R. Mechanics cut holes in the
fender wells so they could get a universal-jointed socket onto the
plugs. A couple years later, the body shops were filled with Mustangs
needing new fender wells, an integral part of the Unibody. All had
cracked and some suspensions had collapsed. Oops!


I cut my teeth on Dad's Austin Healey 100-4. He raced gymkhanas and
autocrosses in the Little Rock, AR area when I was growing up. That's
a good portion of why I went to UTI (automotive tech school) right out
of high school.

I loved the 100-4. Slow as molasses (85 mph top speed, stock) but it felt
like an old-time race car. That is to say, you'd pitch it into a corner like
a dirt-tracker and pray everything didn't get too loose. It was a bit...er,
flexible.

Yeah. We both tested (me as navigator) a friend's 100-6 (Later
renamed the AH 3000) and that was a totally different beast, both in
power and handling. (Not as bad as tossing a 429 under a Mustang hood
and trying to go around a corner.)


When I first started racing there was a 100-4 at Lime Rock, H production,
that didn't do too badly.

Dad had half a dozen trophies. 1st, 2nd, Place, and Thanks for Showing
Up, I reckon.


I'll never forget how much fun I had truing and tuning those bright
and shiny chrome wire wheels. There's a lost art for ya...

I'll leave it to you. I had wire wheels on my Mk III Midget. They were the
wrong wheels for racing, Immatellayou.

The Healey spokes were BEEFY. Perhaps that was the difference.

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

Larry Jaques wrote:

Dad had half a dozen trophies. 1st, 2nd, Place, and Thanks for Showing
Up, I reckon.


At least he didn't get any "Are you here, again" trophies. ;-)


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

On Mar 26, 5:14*am, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:01:48 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools

wrote:

We saw how well that worked when Clinton killed funding for HUMINT in
the middle east, and a few years later..the WTC went down

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Trying to still change the subject Gunner? ;)

Still waiting for your cites to all the claims you have made, and as
yet, still not supplied any



How do you like those Bush fuel prices you are paying to the Arabs?

They appreciate your contributions to Al-Qaeda.

TMT

Tell you what. Since you are simply a vicious little rapid ****, all
bluster and no backup, I think Im gonna simply put you in the kill
file, with no expiration date.
If you had simply provided a few legitimate cites to back up your
spew, Id have let you live, but no...bluster and bull**** is your one
trick pony.

Bye ****tard, dont call us, we will call you.

plink

Gunner

My..my..do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Does being killfiled mean no more Gunner rants?

Damn...things are looking up.

Try reading the original post...mine..that tells you what you don't
want to admit.

And say Hi! to George and his Arab friends...Osama Bin Forgotten.

TMT

On Mar 26, 6:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Most people describe their salary in terms of dollars per year. Or dollars
per hour. Since it takes more hours to make the same dollars, lets see.
Would that be less dollars, paid over more hours? Yes, by golly, that sounds
right.

So, lets look at two imaginary truckers. Trucker F, for Fast, and S for
Slow.

F drives 60 MPH, for 10 hours a day. He drives six *days a week. He makes
0.333 a mile, just as a round number. 60 x 10 = 600. Times six days = 3600
miles. Then, x 0.333 makes for $1200.

S drives 50 MPH, for 10 hours a day. He drives six days a week. He makes
0.333 a mile, *just as a round number. 50 x 10 = 500. Times six days = 3000
miles. Then, x 0.333 makes for $1000.

Since drivers are (legally) only permitted some number of hours of road
time, I'd say that S is going to bring home less money each week. Less money
each year. Which is the measure of salary: dollars per year.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message

news:0ojGj.2327$rb6.766@trnddc01...

Truckers get paid by the MILE, not MILE PER HOUR. *Slowing down does not
cut what they are paid. *They can only drive so many hours in a day,
regardless of the speed and a five or ten mile per hour reduction will
not make that big of a difference. *Twelve hours at a five mph reduction
is only 60 miles. *120 for a 10 mph reduction. *The same load will still
go the same number of miles, it'll just get there a little later.

Jim

Oh geez...now you did it...giving conservatives facts and numbers no
less really confuses them. ;)

Thanks for laying out the details Mormon.

TMT

On Mar 26, 6:12*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
1) The price of gas has gone up because of limits on supply, and limits on
refineries.

2) Taxes are higher in Europe.

Man, it's amazing, the things you don't think are possible. And that goofy
"driving slower isn't a pay cut" thing. Do you live in the USA? Are you out
of school, and into the job market, yet? *How old are you?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message

news:0ojGj.2327$rb6.766@trnddc01...
As
for the "Bush gas prices", if he is screwing us so badly, why then are
the folks in England, Europe, Australia, etc., paying $6-$7 per gallon?
Can you explain that? *Didn't think so.

Jim

It comes from listening to talk radio and having Fox News as your
primary sources of information.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste....even a conservative one.

TMT

On Mar 26, 10:42*am, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:26:52 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Mar 25, 8:00 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Since truckers get paid by the mile, a speed cut is a pay cut. That can
really hurt a professional driver.

That is why the independent truckers are getting creamed.

Truckers get paid by the MILE, not MILE PER HOUR. *Slowing down does not
cut what they are paid. *They can only drive so many hours in a day,
regardless of the speed and a five or ten mile per hour reduction will
not make that big of a difference. *Twelve hours at a five mph reduction
is only 60 miles. *120 for a 10 mph reduction. *The same load will still
go the same number of miles, it'll just get there a little later. *As
for the "Bush gas prices", if he is screwing us so badly, why then are
the folks in England, Europe, Australia, etc., paying $6-$7 per gallon?
Can you explain that? *Didn't think so.

* Truckers are getting paid by the mile, and in the USA there are
strict duty limits on drivers that dictate how many hours per day they
can drive - they can't just 'drive an extra hour a day' to make up for
it... *Even with Team Driving, where two drivers can swap off and move
24/7, they can only move as fast as the speed limits allow. *So any
speed limit cut WILL have an effect on their bottom line, period.

* Whether the extra income from driving faster offsets the extra fuel
they have to burn to get there is a mathematical exercise for the
driver if he is an independent contractor, or their employer if the
freight company he works for is footing the fuel bills.

* *-- Bruce --- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good points Bruce.

The fact that the company is spending money and time to force the
trucks to go slower tells you that conservation works.

Carter was right.

And a Democrat.

TMT

On Mar 26, 6:56*pm, "William Wixon" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...





I thought the group would find this story interesting....

From what I see on the freeway daily, most are not slowing down.

Slowing down...that brings back memories of the Carter conservation
days....

TMT

Truckers slowing down to save fuel By JAMES MacPHERSON, Associated
Press Writer

-snip-

Frantz said the company should have the governors on the 3,000 rigs in
its truckload fleet adjusted next month.

i'm glad to hear they're slowing down.
one thing i've wondered for quite a while, how come they can't manufacture
and use some sort of trailing edge fairing for the rear of a semi-truck's
cargo box? * if streamlining can make it so this 18 hp airplane can fly 155
mph i'm sure ANY sort of streamlining would reduce a trucker's mpg.http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/da11.html* i bet SUBSTANTIALLY. *the only
reasons i can think of is, tradition, and the fear of ridicule from his
fellows. *"breaker breaker good buddy, looks like you got a "load on"! har,
har!" *(reply) "i'm saving 10% a year in fuel costs. *it paid for itself in
a year" * *silence .... * *(long pause) *sheepishly where'd ya get one
of those things and how much does it cost?" * oh, maybe another reason would
be overall length, but i'd imagine they could write some sort of amendment
to allow fuel saving streamlining devices. *it would be such a simple
modification. *could be very lightweight. *i guess another problem would be
the fairing flying off in traffic because some dickhead didn't attach it
properly, or truckers backing into stuff and crushing/damaging them.
why don't they do that?!

b.w.

(they should make a "streamliner" truck. *totally asinine looking but huge
savings in fuel)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good idea but I wonder about the overall length of the truck might be
a problem..anyone know?

TMT

On Mar 26, 10:43*pm, "William Wixon" wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message

...



Well, get a great big wind tunnel? :^)

Or

Look at the inverted spoilers on the backs of SUVs and old station wagons.

that's funny because i'm right in the middle of putting ladder racks on my
pick up truck cap. *i have an piece of streamlined aluminum airplane strut
that i'm going to use for the horizontal. *i was wondering if that might
kinda break the boundary layer. *doubt it. *hafta check with a wind tunnel,
which i have none.

b.w.

Anything you do to reduce drag translates into dollars and cents
saved...fast.

I reviewed a report once (sorry I don't know where it is now) that
showed how just a little drag reduces gas mileage quickly.

I was surprised by how fast the effect showed up.

Lesson learned....keep your rigs as areodynamically clean as possible.

TMT

On Mar 26, 11:41*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message

...





William Wixon wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

Well, get a great big wind tunnel? :^)

Or

Look at the inverted spoilers on the backs of SUVs and old station
wagons.

that's funny because i'm right in the middle of putting ladder racks on
my pick up truck cap. *i have an piece of streamlined aluminum airplane
strut that i'm going to use for the horizontal. *i was wondering if that
might kinda break the boundary layer. *doubt it. *hafta check with a wind
tunnel, which i have none.

b.w.

Yarn, about 6 inches long, taped all over teh surface can show what the
local boundry layer is doing.

Now, OBSERVING that effect might be a trick.

Need another truck and video camera to make it work,

Richard

This isn't very hard to do, once you get some practice. I taped yarn tufts
all over my racing ITC Fiesta (yeah, I know -- it wasn't much) in the
mid-80s and videotaped it from another car driving on an Interstate. I was
checking the effects of propping up the rear of the hood, which was legal in
SCCA's ITC class.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Excellent idea.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 11:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


This isn't very hard to do, once you get some practice. I taped yarn tufts
all over my racing ITC Fiesta (yeah, I know -- it wasn't much) in the
mid-80s and videotaped it from another car driving on an Interstate. I was
checking the effects of propping up the rear of the hood, which was legal
in
SCCA's ITC class.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Excellent idea.

TMT

It is not original. g Several good books on building racecars describe it,
and that's where I learned it.

--
Ed Huntress

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 11:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip

This isn't very hard to do, once you get some practice. I taped yarn
tufts
all over my racing ITC Fiesta (yeah, I know -- it wasn't much) in the
mid-80s and videotaped it from another car driving on an Interstate. I
was
checking the effects of propping up the rear of the hood, which was legal
in
SCCA's ITC class.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Excellent idea.


TMT


It is not original. g Several good books on building racecars describe
it, and that's where I learned it.

--
Ed Huntress


What was the idea?

Vent off the high pressure area in front of the windshield?


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Oh, jeez, maybe I misunderstood what TMT was commenting about. I thought he
meant that the yarn tufts are a good idea. They are, but they're also a very
old idea.

Regarding propping the hood, the idea is to let hot air out from under the
hood. I know, the bottom of the windshield often is a high pressure area,
but it's another old idea. An ITC Fiesta didn't generate enough extra heat
that you had to worry about the overheating issue.

The reason I was trying it was to see if I could delay separation for a
couple of inches down the hatchback window. I know, it was unlikely to do
anything at that remote distance, but I was curious.

FWIW, the sharp edges on the Fiesta started turbulence every which way, but
then it re-attached. Over the top, it re-attached about halfway along the
roof, and then it promptly got turbulent again, before you got to the rear
window.

I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.

--
Ed Huntress

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Mar 26, 10:43 pm, "William Wixon" wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message

...




Well, get a great big wind tunnel? :^)

Or

Look at the inverted spoilers on the backs of SUVs and old station wagons.

that's funny because i'm right in the middle of putting ladder racks on my
pick up truck cap. i have an piece of streamlined aluminum airplane strut
that i'm going to use for the horizontal. i was wondering if that might
kinda break the boundary layer. doubt it. hafta check with a wind tunnel,
which i have none.

b.w.


Anything you do to reduce drag translates into dollars and cents
saved...fast.

I reviewed a report once (sorry I don't know where it is now) that
showed how just a little drag reduces gas mileage quickly.

I was surprised by how fast the effect showed up.

Lesson learned....keep your rigs as areodynamically clean as possible.

TMT


I keep toying with the idea of removing the roof rack from my Blazer.
But once in a while I actually use it.

And I suspect it's part of the roll over protection.


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Mar 26, 6:56 pm, "William Wixon" wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...






I thought the group would find this story interesting....

From what I see on the freeway daily, most are not slowing down.

Slowing down...that brings back memories of the Carter conservation
days....

TMT

Truckers slowing down to save fuel By JAMES MacPHERSON, Associated
Press Writer

-snip-


Frantz said the company should have the governors on the 3,000 rigs in
its truckload fleet adjusted next month.

i'm glad to hear they're slowing down.
one thing i've wondered for quite a while, how come they can't manufacture
and use some sort of trailing edge fairing for the rear of a semi-truck's
cargo box? if streamlining can make it so this 18 hp airplane can fly 155
mph i'm sure ANY sort of streamlining would reduce a trucker's mpg.http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/da11.html i bet SUBSTANTIALLY. the only
reasons i can think of is, tradition, and the fear of ridicule from his
fellows. "breaker breaker good buddy, looks like you got a "load on"! har,
har!" (reply) "i'm saving 10% a year in fuel costs. it paid for itself in
a year" silence .... (long pause) sheepishly where'd ya get one
of those things and how much does it cost?" oh, maybe another reason would
be overall length, but i'd imagine they could write some sort of amendment
to allow fuel saving streamlining devices. it would be such a simple
modification. could be very lightweight. i guess another problem would be
the fairing flying off in traffic because some dickhead didn't attach it
properly, or truckers backing into stuff and crushing/damaging them.
why don't they do that?!

b.w.

(they should make a "streamliner" truck. totally asinine looking but huge
savings in fuel)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Good idea but I wonder about the overall length of the truck might be
a problem..anyone know?

TMT

For a given length, the volumn available would be about 1/2.
Maybe a bit more, but - not gonna happen cap'ain.



Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 11:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip

This isn't very hard to do, once you get some practice. I taped yarn tufts
all over my racing ITC Fiesta (yeah, I know -- it wasn't much) in the
mid-80s and videotaped it from another car driving on an Interstate. I was
checking the effects of propping up the rear of the hood, which was legal
in
SCCA's ITC class.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Excellent idea.


TMT


It is not original. g Several good books on building racecars describe it,
and that's where I learned it.

--
Ed Huntress




What was the idea?

Vent off the high pressure area in front of the windshield?


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:51:02 -0400 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Ed
Huntress" wrote,
The car as it was sold in the US (which was a strict econobox) had 13"
wheels and 8" disc brakes. That's how you had to race it in the Production
class. Those were the only brakes I've ever had that I could mount on my 10"
South Bend for re-facing.

Aren't you supposed to face brake disks both sides simultaneously,
lest they warp?

"David Harmon" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:51:02 -0400 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Ed
Huntress" wrote,
The car as it was sold in the US (which was a strict econobox) had 13"
wheels and 8" disc brakes. That's how you had to race it in the Production
class. Those were the only brakes I've ever had that I could mount on my
10"
South Bend for re-facing.

Aren't you supposed to face brake disks both sides simultaneously,
lest they warp?

(First, my memory, which engages slowly these days, tells me those original
equipment wheels were 12", not 13"). In answer to your question, I don't
know. I faced them one side at a time because that's all I could do with
what I had. It worked just fine.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:


"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 11:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip

This isn't very hard to do, once you get some practice. I taped yarn
tufts
all over my racing ITC Fiesta (yeah, I know -- it wasn't much) in the
mid-80s and videotaped it from another car driving on an Interstate. I
was
checking the effects of propping up the rear of the hood, which was legal
in
SCCA's ITC class.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Excellent idea.


TMT


It is not original. g Several good books on building racecars describe
it, and that's where I learned it.

--
Ed Huntress


What was the idea?

Vent off the high pressure area in front of the windshield?


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)


Oh, jeez, maybe I misunderstood what TMT was commenting about. I thought he
meant that the yarn tufts are a good idea. They are, but they're also a very
old idea.

Regarding propping the hood, the idea is to let hot air out from under the
hood. I know, the bottom of the windshield often is a high pressure area,
but it's another old idea. An ITC Fiesta didn't generate enough extra heat
that you had to worry about the overheating issue.

The reason I was trying it was to see if I could delay separation for a
couple of inches down the hatchback window. I know, it was unlikely to do
anything at that remote distance, but I was curious.

FWIW, the sharp edges on the Fiesta started turbulence every which way, but
then it re-attached. Over the top, it re-attached about halfway along the
roof, and then it promptly got turbulent again, before you got to the rear
window.

I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.

--
Ed Huntress


Yeah.

Those were the days before turbulators became well known.

People were still trying to push air around like it was a solid or
something. Won't work, of course.
Air is the only thing on this planet lazier than me.

But tickle the bottom of that turbulent flow and it will often lay right
down on the surface.

For that matter, so will I! But you probably don't want to know that.


Richard

--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

On Mar 27, 11:48*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I loved the 100-4. Slow as molasses (85 mph top speed, stock) but it felt
like an old-time race car. That is to say, you'd pitch it into a corner like
a dirt-tracker and pray everything didn't get too loose. It was a bit...er,
flexible.

When I first started racing there was a 100-4 at Lime Rock, H production,
that didn't do too badly.

--
Ed Huntress

There was a trick to getting it over 85, Ed - a chrome plated lever on
the side of the transmision tunnel. You pulled up on it a bit, pushed
in the button on the end, and pushed it down as far as it would go.
It's called a parking brake.

A stock Healey 100 would do just over 100 mph. The 100M would do
about 110, and the 100S a lot more. If yours topped out at 85 it was
sick, or you're confusing it with an MG or something else.

My best friend had a 3000 - one of the very few I've seen with disc
wheels and no overdrive. It also had no top, a 6" piece of plexiglass
for a windshield, and doors that were welded shut. It was quite a bit
faster than my 100, although we thought the 100 was almost as quick.

John Martin

"John Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mar 27, 11:48 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I loved the 100-4. Slow as molasses (85 mph top speed, stock) but it felt
like an old-time race car. That is to say, you'd pitch it into a corner
like
a dirt-tracker and pray everything didn't get too loose. It was a
bit...er,
flexible.

When I first started racing there was a 100-4 at Lime Rock, H production,
that didn't do too badly.

--
Ed Huntress

There was a trick to getting it over 85, Ed - a chrome plated lever on
the side of the transmision tunnel. You pulled up on it a bit, pushed
in the button on the end, and pushed it down as far as it would go.
It's called a parking brake.

A stock Healey 100 would do just over 100 mph. The 100M would do
about 110, and the 100S a lot more. If yours topped out at 85 it was
sick, or you're confusing it with an MG or something else.

I'll take your word for it, John. I couldn't dispute it from my own limited
experience: even when I started playing with sports cars there were not many
original 100-4s around, and I never owned one, but the "100" designation for
a basic, stock 100-4 usually drew a snicker. It reminded me of what a top
Jaguar mechanic I knew once said about the "140" designation of the Jag
XK-140: "They must have faster roads in England." g

In higher states of tune the car could be a lot faster. Most of the ones I
encountered, among my racing/rally friends, had been warmed over pretty
good.

My best friend had a 3000 - one of the very few I've seen with disc
wheels and no overdrive. It also had no top, a 6" piece of plexiglass
for a windshield, and doors that were welded shut. It was quite a bit
faster than my 100, although we thought the 100 was almost as quick.

John Martin

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:16:40 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.

Erm, you mean to tell us that you couldn't discern that just from
lookin' at it? Or were you just young(ish), full of testosterone, and
had far too much time on your hands? Methinks it's the latter.

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

In article ,
"William Wixon" wrote:

i'm glad to hear they're slowing down.
one thing i've wondered for quite a while, how come they can't manufacture
and use some sort of trailing edge fairing for the rear of a semi-truck's
cargo box? if streamlining can make it so this 18 hp airplane can fly 155
mph i'm sure ANY sort of streamlining would reduce a trucker's mpg.
http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/da11.html i bet SUBSTANTIALLY. the only
reasons i can think of is, tradition, and the fear of ridicule from his
fellows. "breaker breaker good buddy, looks like you got a "load on"! har,
har!" (reply) "i'm saving 10% a year in fuel costs. it paid for itself in
a year" silence .... (long pause) sheepishly where'd ya get one
of those things and how much does it cost?" oh, maybe another reason would
be overall length, but i'd imagine they could write some sort of amendment
to allow fuel saving streamlining devices. it would be such a simple
modification. could be very lightweight. i guess another problem would be
the fairing flying off in traffic because some dickhead didn't attach it
properly, or truckers backing into stuff and crushing/damaging them.
why don't they do that?!

The problem is not scientific, it's legal. It would be trivial to make
an inflatable trailing edge to reduce drag & turbulence, that would also
reduce injuries in case of a rear-end accident. The problem is it's
illegal and will remain so until the legislators start driving their own
trucks, about 2 weeks after hell freezes over

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:16:40 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.

Erm, you mean to tell us that you couldn't discern that just from
lookin' at it? Or were you just young(ish), full of testosterone, and
had far too much time on your hands? Methinks it's the latter.

No, I'm not good at judging Cd (coefficient of drag) just by looking at a
car. Let's see how good you are. g The Cd of a Hummer H2 is 0.57. Without
looking it up, what do you estimate is the Cd for a Lotus 7? How about a
1992 Ford Crown Victoria? BTW, the Fiesta is alleged to be 0.41.

(I picked up the data from a Wikipedia source, and I haven't been successful
in tracking it back to the real origin, but it may be from coasting-test
data, or "rolldown" data as some people call it.)

--
Ed Huntress

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:


"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 11:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip

This isn't very hard to do, once you get some practice. I taped yarn
tufts
all over my racing ITC Fiesta (yeah, I know -- it wasn't much) in the
mid-80s and videotaped it from another car driving on an Interstate. I
was
checking the effects of propping up the rear of the hood, which was
legal in
SCCA's ITC class.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Excellent idea.


TMT


It is not original. g Several good books on building racecars describe
it, and that's where I learned it.

--
Ed Huntress


What was the idea?

Vent off the high pressure area in front of the windshield?


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)


Oh, jeez, maybe I misunderstood what TMT was commenting about. I thought
he meant that the yarn tufts are a good idea. They are, but they're also
a very old idea.

Regarding propping the hood, the idea is to let hot air out from under
the hood. I know, the bottom of the windshield often is a high pressure
area, but it's another old idea. An ITC Fiesta didn't generate enough
extra heat that you had to worry about the overheating issue.

The reason I was trying it was to see if I could delay separation for a
couple of inches down the hatchback window. I know, it was unlikely to do
anything at that remote distance, but I was curious.

FWIW, the sharp edges on the Fiesta started turbulence every which way,
but then it re-attached. Over the top, it re-attached about halfway along
the roof, and then it promptly got turbulent again, before you got to the
rear window.

I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.

--
Ed Huntress
Yeah.

Those were the days before turbulators became well known.

I don't know them so well today, for that matter. g I look at aerodynamics
texts today and my eyes roll back in my head.


People were still trying to push air around like it was a solid or
something. Won't work, of course.
Air is the only thing on this planet lazier than me.

But tickle the bottom of that turbulent flow and it will often lay right
down on the surface.

For that matter, so will I! But you probably don't want to know that.


Jeez. Here comes another OT thread. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 11:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip

This isn't very hard to do, once you get some practice. I taped yarn
tufts
all over my racing ITC Fiesta (yeah, I know -- it wasn't much) in the
mid-80s and videotaped it from another car driving on an Interstate. I
was
checking the effects of propping up the rear of the hood, which was legal
in
SCCA's ITC class.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Excellent idea.

TMT

It is not original. g Several good books on building racecars describe
it, and that's where I learned it.

--
Ed Huntress

What was the idea?

Vent off the high pressure area in front of the windshield?


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Oh, jeez, maybe I misunderstood what TMT was commenting about. I thought he
meant that the yarn tufts are a good idea. They are, but they're also a very
old idea.

Regarding propping the hood, the idea is to let hot air out from under the
hood. I know, the bottom of the windshield often is a high pressure area,
but it's another old idea. An ITC Fiesta didn't generate enough extra heat
that you had to worry about the overheating issue.

The reason I was trying it was to see if I could delay separation for a
couple of inches down the hatchback window. I know, it was unlikely to do
anything at that remote distance, but I was curious.

FWIW, the sharp edges on the Fiesta started turbulence every which way, but
then it re-attached. Over the top, it re-attached about halfway along the
roof, and then it promptly got turbulent again, before you got to the rear
window.

I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.

I recall when Fiestas first came out much was made of the grill slats,
supposedly designed so that as speed increased, air packed in front of
them so at higher speeds it was like a flat panel with just enough
airflow to keep the motor cool, the rest going around to aid aero.

David Harmon wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:51:02 -0400 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Ed
Huntress" wrote,
The car as it was sold in the US (which was a strict econobox) had 13"
wheels and 8" disc brakes. That's how you had to race it in the Production
class. Those were the only brakes I've ever had that I could mount on my 10"
South Bend for re-facing.

Aren't you supposed to face brake disks both sides simultaneously,
lest they warp?

that's true on dedicated brake lathes designed to get the job done
quickly. Part of that is deep cuts, negative-rake bits, and high
pressure, which can deflect the rotor as a warped section comes around.
A bit on each side balances that.
But a careful machinist using sharp positive-rake tools can do just
fine with a regular lathe.

John Martin wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:48 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
I loved the 100-4. Slow as molasses (85 mph top speed, stock) but it felt
like an old-time race car. That is to say, you'd pitch it into a corner like
a dirt-tracker and pray everything didn't get too loose. It was a bit...er,
flexible.

When I first started racing there was a 100-4 at Lime Rock, H production,
that didn't do too badly.

--
Ed Huntress

There was a trick to getting it over 85, Ed - a chrome plated lever on
the side of the transmision tunnel. You pulled up on it a bit, pushed
in the button on the end, and pushed it down as far as it would go.
It's called a parking brake.

A stock Healey 100 would do just over 100 mph. The 100M would do
about 110, and the 100S a lot more. If yours topped out at 85 it was
sick, or you're confusing it with an MG or something else.

Yep. The Healey 100 was supposed to be a 100 mph car.
that was the way it was advertised. Might be what the 100 was for?

"Rex" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 11:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip

This isn't very hard to do, once you get some practice. I taped yarn
tufts
all over my racing ITC Fiesta (yeah, I know -- it wasn't much) in the
mid-80s and videotaped it from another car driving on an Interstate. I
was
checking the effects of propping up the rear of the hood, which was
legal in
SCCA's ITC class.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Excellent idea.

TMT

It is not original. g Several good books on building racecars
describe it, and that's where I learned it.

--
Ed Huntress

What was the idea?

Vent off the high pressure area in front of the windshield?


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Oh, jeez, maybe I misunderstood what TMT was commenting about. I thought
he meant that the yarn tufts are a good idea. They are, but they're also
a very old idea.

Regarding propping the hood, the idea is to let hot air out from under
the hood. I know, the bottom of the windshield often is a high pressure
area, but it's another old idea. An ITC Fiesta didn't generate enough
extra heat that you had to worry about the overheating issue.

The reason I was trying it was to see if I could delay separation for a
couple of inches down the hatchback window. I know, it was unlikely to do
anything at that remote distance, but I was curious.

FWIW, the sharp edges on the Fiesta started turbulence every which way,
but then it re-attached. Over the top, it re-attached about halfway along
the roof, and then it promptly got turbulent again, before you got to the
rear window.

I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.

I recall when Fiestas first came out much was made of the grill slats,
supposedly designed so that as speed increased, air packed in front of
them so at higher speeds it was like a flat panel with just enough airflow
to keep the motor cool, the rest going around to aid aero.

Hmm. That one passed right over my head.

I didn't buy the Fiesta to race. It was my wife's commuter, and it had over
120,000 miles on it when I took it to driver's school. At 144,000 I replaced
the engine with a used one I extracted from a junkyard car that had been in
an accident, which had 42,000 on it. It was a good engine and I think it was
the one that Bob Connell wound up using to win some ITC races at Lime Rock.

Connell bought both my Fiesta chassis and both of my engines, over the
course of a couple of years. The one that had been in an accident wound up
being his race car, after he T-boned an RX-7 with his first one. I think my
old Fiestas were thrashed through SCCA events for around 15 years. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Rex" wrote in message
...
John Martin wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:48 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
I loved the 100-4. Slow as molasses (85 mph top speed, stock) but it
felt
like an old-time race car. That is to say, you'd pitch it into a corner
like
a dirt-tracker and pray everything didn't get too loose. It was a
bit...er,
flexible.

When I first started racing there was a 100-4 at Lime Rock, H
production,
that didn't do too badly.

--
Ed Huntress

There was a trick to getting it over 85, Ed - a chrome plated lever on
the side of the transmision tunnel. You pulled up on it a bit, pushed
in the button on the end, and pushed it down as far as it would go.
It's called a parking brake.

A stock Healey 100 would do just over 100 mph. The 100M would do
about 110, and the 100S a lot more. If yours topped out at 85 it was
sick, or you're confusing it with an MG or something else.

Yep. The Healey 100 was supposed to be a 100 mph car.
that was the way it was advertised. Might be what the 100 was for?

That was the claim. An early stock 100-4 was rated at 90 hp, in a car that
weighed 2,200 lb. I won't dispute what John says, and maybe my exposure was
to bad examples, but the ones I knew about were not fast in stock form.

--
Ed Huntress

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .


The problem is not scientific, it's legal. It would be trivial to make
an inflatable trailing edge to reduce drag & turbulence, that would also
reduce injuries in case of a rear-end accident. The problem is it's
illegal and will remain so until the legislators start driving their own
trucks, about 2 weeks after hell freezes over



that's beautiful. i didn't think of inflatable. i was totally thinking of
"aluminum" or "fiberglass". inflatable makes so much more sense. the thing
that was messing me up was "what are they going to do with a 10 foot tall
100 pound aluminum clamshell when they arrive to off load their cargo?" i
love it. inflatable. they could mass produce them so even if one does blow
off it won't be a major (financial) loss to the trucking company. i thought
the problem was that truckers would refuse to use them because they'd look
(TOTALLY) silly, but i kept thinking when the word got out that you can save
hundreds of dollars in fuel costs, they'd lose their resistance. inflatable
like a rigid white water raft. see that? we solved one of the world's
problems right here on R.C.M.!

b.w.

(they've got to change the "overall" length laws now though.)
(you mean illegal because of laws that limit a truck's overall length,
right?)
(one other thing i was wondering about is if it would interfere with seeing
a truck's turn signals, etc.) (maybe they could put LED lights/turn signals
right into it when they manufacture it?)

Ed Huntress wrote:

I didn't buy the Fiesta to race. It was my wife's commuter, and it had over
120,000 miles on it when I took it to driver's school. At 144,000 I replaced
the engine with a used one I extracted from a junkyard car that had been in
an accident, which had 42,000 on it. It was a good engine and I think it was
the one that Bob Connell wound up using to win some ITC races at Lime Rock.

Those engines are in demand now from the FF crowd, who long ago ran out
of Cortina and then pinto 1600s.

"Rex" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

I didn't buy the Fiesta to race. It was my wife's commuter, and it had
over 120,000 miles on it when I took it to driver's school. At 144,000 I
replaced the engine with a used one I extracted from a junkyard car that
had been in an accident, which had 42,000 on it. It was a good engine and
I think it was the one that Bob Connell wound up using to win some ITC
races at Lime Rock.

Those engines are in demand now from the FF crowd, who long ago ran out of
Cortina and then pinto 1600s.

That surprises me because the casting was a bit different because of the
front-wheel drive. I guess they could be adapted.

They had another quirk, too. Because of EPA regulations, the head casting
(cast iron) was somewhat thinner than the UK/Europe version. The combustion
chamber ran slightly cooler as a result. But the head was prone to cracking
if the engine overheated.

For that reason it was desirable to have spare heads around. That's why Bob
Connell wanted my engines in the first place. Some racers would order a head
from the UK but, technically, it wasn't legal. It didn't seem to make much,
if any, difference in performance, however, so I don't think they were
protested.

I always liked that engine (a modified version of the 125E New Kent) and its
predecessors. It made a nice high-revving race engine in its day.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Mar 26, 6:56Â*pm, "William Wixon" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...





I thought the group would find this story interesting....

From what I see on the freeway daily, most are not slowing down.

Slowing down...that brings back memories of the Carter conservation
days....

TMT

Truckers slowing down to save fuel By JAMES MacPHERSON, Associated
Press Writer

-snip-

Frantz said the company should have the governors on the 3,000 rigs in
its truckload fleet adjusted next month.

i'm glad to hear they're slowing down.
one thing i've wondered for quite a while, how come they can't manufacture
and use some sort of trailing edge fairing for the rear of a semi-truck's
cargo box? Â* if streamlining can make it so this 18 hp airplane can fly 155
mph i'm sure ANY sort of streamlining would reduce a trucker's mpg.http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/da11.htmlÂ* i bet SUBSTANTIALLY. Â*the only
reasons i can think of is, tradition, and the fear of ridicule from his
fellows. Â*"breaker breaker good buddy, looks like you got a "load on"! har,
har!" Â*(reply) "i'm saving 10% a year in fuel costs. Â*it paid for itself in
a year" Â* Â*silence .... Â* Â*(long pause) Â*sheepishly where'd ya get one
of those things and how much does it cost?" Â* oh, maybe another reason would
be overall length, but i'd imagine they could write some sort of amendment
to allow fuel saving streamlining devices. Â*it would be such a simple
modification. Â*could be very lightweight. Â*i guess another problem would be
the fairing flying off in traffic because some dickhead didn't attach it
properly, or truckers backing into stuff and crushing/damaging them.
why don't they do that?!

b.w.

(they should make a "streamliner" truck. Â*totally asinine looking but huge
savings in fuel)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good idea but I wonder about the overall length of the truck might be
a problem..anyone know?

TMT


Look up "air tabs" Vortex generators to fit transport trucks and RVs.
They DO work.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .


The problem is not scientific, it's legal. It would be trivial to make
an inflatable trailing edge to reduce drag & turbulence, that would also
reduce injuries in case of a rear-end accident. The problem is it's
illegal and will remain so until the legislators start driving their own
trucks, about 2 weeks after hell freezes over



that's beautiful. i didn't think of inflatable. i was totally thinking
of
"aluminum" or "fiberglass". inflatable makes so much more sense. the
thing
that was messing me up was "what are they going to do with a 10 foot tall
100 pound aluminum clamshell when they arrive to off load their cargo?" i
love it. inflatable. they could mass produce them so even if one does
blow
off it won't be a major (financial) loss to the trucking company. i
thought
the problem was that truckers would refuse to use them because they'd look
(TOTALLY) silly, but i kept thinking when the word got out that you can
save
hundreds of dollars in fuel costs, they'd lose their resistance.
inflatable
like a rigid white water raft. see that? we solved one of the world's
problems right here on R.C.M.!

b.w.

(they've got to change the "overall" length laws now though.)
(you mean illegal because of laws that limit a truck's overall length,
right?)
(one other thing i was wondering about is if it would interfere with
seeing
a truck's turn signals, etc.) (maybe they could put LED lights/turn
signals
right into it when they manufacture it?)
If one was to blow off on the freeway, it might cost the trucking company a
lot depending on the traffic behind. I can see the surviving spouse of a
motorcycle rider that had one of the inflatable blow off in front of him
having a field day with lawyers. That said, it does sound like a good idea.
I wonder what I could gain with one on the back of my Lance camper?
stu

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:16:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.


Gee, I could have told you that without using yarn tufts, Ed!!!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:16:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.


Gee, I could have told you that without using yarn tufts, Ed!!!

Well, where were you when I needed you?

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 28, 9:36*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Yep. The Healey 100 was supposed to be a 100 mph car.
that was the way it was advertised. Might be what the 100 was for?

That was the claim. An early stock 100-4 was rated at 90 hp, in a car that
weighed 2,200 lb. I won't dispute what John says, and maybe my exposure was
to bad examples, but the ones I knew about were not fast in stock form.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only 90 hp, but tons of torque.

So much so that the earliest ones - the BN1 version - were sold as 3-
speeds even though they had a 4-speed transmission. What should have
been first gear was blocked off, because with the low ratio and the
torque of the engine it was too easy to break an axle. And, with the
light weight of the car, starting in second was easy. You could start
it in fourth if you wanted, with only a bit of clutch slipping.
Second, third and fourth (first, second and third as labeled) were all
synchro, but the low first gear was not. The shift pattern as sold
was very odd. First, third and reverse were all back, only second was
forward. I still remember sitting in it (stopped) one day, pondering
how odd the pattern was, thinking that there really should have been
something ahead of the labeled first - where reverse would have been
on a typical US three-speed. So I played with the stick a bit, and in
it went. Whoa, what do you do next? I pushed down the clutch,
started the engine, and let the clutch out just as slowly as I could.
Still, it took off with a jump and scared the hell out of me. I found
out that mine - like lots of others - had been modified by filing out
the shift gate to allow selecting the low gear. The BN2 cars had four
speeds with closer ratios.

The handling was also better than you recall. There were some "loose"
ones, but that was often due to actual looseness in the front
suspension. The front shocks consisted of a casting bolted to the
frame, with arms on each side that served as the upper wishbone. Four
small screws mounted the casting to the frame, and it was not uncommon
to find the outer ones stripped or broken and the inner ones loose,
with the shock flopping around.

I wish I still had it. Storage in a dirt-floored barn did a job on
the underside, though.

John Martin

On Mar 28, 9:36*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

An early stock 100-4
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, and just to be picky, it was just plain "100". Although there
were the 100M (LeMans) and 100S (Sebring). When Healey brought out
the six cylinder model they called the 100-6, people started referring
to the old ones as 100-4s.

Like "flathead Ford" in a way. I don't think the "flathead" nickname
came about until the OHV engines became common in the early 1950s.

John Martin

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:13:49 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:16:40 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.

Erm, you mean to tell us that you couldn't discern that just from
lookin' at it? Or were you just young(ish), full of testosterone, and
had far too much time on your hands? Methinks it's the latter.

No, I'm not good at judging Cd (coefficient of drag) just by looking at a
car. Let's see how good you are. g The Cd of a Hummer H2 is 0.57. Without
looking it up, what do you estimate is the Cd for a Lotus 7? How about a
1992 Ford Crown Victoria? BTW, the Fiesta is alleged to be 0.41.

I can tell you precisely within my set of standards. "Is" and "Ain't"
(streamlined) are the criteria. Jag/Lotus vehicles IS. Fiestas,
Hummers, box vans AIN'T.


(I picked up the data from a Wikipedia source, and I haven't been successful
in tracking it back to the real origin, but it may be from coasting-test
data, or "rolldown" data as some people call it.)

Like the ever popular Rolls Canardly?

(The old beast rolls down one hill and canardly get up the next.)

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:08:59 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Rex
quickly quoth:

A stock Healey 100 would do just over 100 mph. The 100M would do
about 110, and the 100S a lot more. If yours topped out at 85 it was
sick, or you're confusing it with an MG or something else.

Yep. The Healey 100 was supposed to be a 100 mph car.
that was the way it was advertised. Might be what the 100 was for?

Then what about the 3000? Did someone forget to put in the solid
rocket boosters and Bussard ramjet?

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Rex" wrote in message
...

John Martin wrote:

On Mar 27, 11:48 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I loved the 100-4. Slow as molasses (85 mph top speed, stock) but it
felt
like an old-time race car. That is to say, you'd pitch it into a corner
like
a dirt-tracker and pray everything didn't get too loose. It was a
bit...er,
flexible.

When I first started racing there was a 100-4 at Lime Rock, H
production,
that didn't do too badly.

--
Ed Huntress

There was a trick to getting it over 85, Ed - a chrome plated lever on
the side of the transmision tunnel. You pulled up on it a bit, pushed
in the button on the end, and pushed it down as far as it would go.
It's called a parking brake.

A stock Healey 100 would do just over 100 mph. The 100M would do
about 110, and the 100S a lot more. If yours topped out at 85 it was
sick, or you're confusing it with an MG or something else.

Yep. The Healey 100 was supposed to be a 100 mph car.
that was the way it was advertised. Might be what the 100 was for?


That was the claim. An early stock 100-4 was rated at 90 hp, in a car that
weighed 2,200 lb. I won't dispute what John says, and maybe my exposure was
to bad examples, but the ones I knew about were not fast in stock form.

--
Ed Huntress




Works out about right for KILOMETERS...


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne