Review of new Toyota Prius

[Buck]

I know, and that is 1000 brake horsepower, not some phoney measurement done at the flywheel.

 

[flagreen]

Just for fun I found this formula for computing hp online and ran the numbers;

The general calculation for cylinder horsepower is: nxPLAN/33,000

n is the number of power cylinders

x is the number of power strokes in the cylinder per revolution (examples: double acting steam x=2, single acting steam or 2 cycle x=1, 4 cycle x=.5 or 1/2)

P is average cylinder pressure (examples: for steam assume 1/2 the boiler pressure, many early gasoline engines used an assumed 75 psi)

L is the length of the stroke in FEET (example: an 8" stroke would be .667, or 2/3, a 12" stroke would be 1)

A is the area of the piston being acted upon in square inches (the entire face, PLUS in double acting engines, the back side minus the area of the rod)

N is the number of revolutions per minute

multiply all those together and devide that number by 33,000.

Fortunately all the input figures are contained in the link to the Bugatti article. Several have to be converted from metric however.

Doing all the math the number I arrived at was 1131.4079 HP

That's only cylinder horsepower of course. So it could be that at the flywheel 1000 HP might be just about right.

 

[Buck]

I've never put any trust in cylinder horsepower. Brake horsepower is the minimum for me, since it starts with a more realistic measurement (friction measured at the flywheel or driveshaft). I would, however, be most interested in net horsepower (measured on a dynamometer at the wheels). That would give us the truest figure.

By the way, the Royal Automobile Club used a cylinder horesepower many years ago where the horsepower of an engine was determined by multiplying the square of the cylinder diameter in inches by the number of cylinders and then dividing that figure by 2.5 -- awful!

 

[NRG = mc²]

Coefficient of drag: 0.26 <----------------------------------------------------------------- !!!

Its a very good Cd but not spectacular - Opel's Calibra from the early 90's had an identical coefficient:

Yes, the multiple turbos are to counteract lag. The Volkswagen 1.8 liter 4-cylinder has two turbos for that same reason.

Does it??

Anyone have an idea why four turbos are needed on that Bugatti? Surely two larger ones would have worked as well with half the moving parts. Space issue maybe?

Bugatti has an obsession with four turbos. Thier old EB110SS developed well over 600hp from a 3500cc quad turbo V12, they used this engine size and cylinder count because apparently it is very efficient at producing power, which is why it is used in many F-1 cars.

That said, I hate the looks of the Bugatti Veyron. Definately not my taste. Apparently opening it up full throttle in first and second gear, the passenger must be in a vertical position or else they might pass out. So no looking in the footwell for something when the driver is giving it some

 

[mubs]

If some people have their way, it won't be horse power for some vehicles anymore, but cowpower. So instead of saying your car has 300 horses, you'd be saying it's got 300 Moos.

Apparently Sweden has been quite successful in extracting and purifying methane from manure, sewage, salughterhouses, what have you. This methane is then liquified and pumped around just like natural gas. Volvo it seems has several models there that are bi-fuel; just flick a switch.

Today's L.A. Times has an article about how a non-profit here that wants to make transportation more efficient is setting up a collaboration between California and Sweden. Volvo U.S. loves the idea, and so do the dairy farmers and cattle ranchers. Instead of losing money or breaking even on cowshit, maybe they can make a buck or to and help reduce greenhouse gases at the same time. It seems methane burns with little or no waste gases.

 

[flagreen]

It seems methane burns with little or no waste gases.

Only when the cows eat chili the night before.

 

[jtr1962]

Apparently Sweden has been quite successful in extracting and purifying methane from manure, sewage, salughterhouses, what have you. This methane is then liquified and pumped around just like natural gas. Volvo it seems has several models there that are bi-fuel; just flick a switch.

Sounds like something from one of the MadMax movies(i.e. the one with Tina Turner). A mental picture of Mel Gibson shoveling pig shit just popped into my mind. :mrgrn:

Still, it seems like a good idea-the CO2 put into the air by burning methane is taken up by the grass the cows eat. There is no net increase in atmospheric CO2. Also, any fuel with hydrogen in it can be used in a fuel cell.

 

[flagreen]

I can just hear PETA now: "This is slave labor! Free the cows!"

BTW - What happens to all the cow urine? And how long before we have genetically engineered cows who produce ten times the methane of today's cows? What if one of those escaped and found it's way to your neighborhood? Have you guys ever smelled a dairy farm? Yech.

 

[Mercutio]

Chicken farms are a billion times worse. I'm not kidding. Until age 14 I lived in Central Illinois farm country. Cow crap you get used to. Pig crap you get used to. Chicken farms from 1/2 mile away smell worse than being sprayed by a skunk.

 

[flagreen]

There is a lot of methane that just goes to waste in this country. All sorts of live stock and dairy farms would be among the biggest producers I would think. But on top of the list would probably be all the waste water treatment facilities we have which just vent it into the atmosphere. Even in our own homes there is vent pipe from every bathroom to the atmosphere. Ever drive by a landfill and notice the pipes sticking out of the ground? How many landfills are there in Amerca?

It does seem a waste.

 

[CraigLC]

Well I seem to have proven my own case....unfortunately. Even with being attentive and being careful...I rear ended someone this weekend on a wet stretch of road. 91 GMC Jimmy S15 (the small one) Vs 2000 Jaguar Type S. No ifs, ands, or butts about it. I won. My truck needs a new grill...a piece that holds a headlight on and to make it perfect a hood and fenders along with a bumper... most likely the hood and fanders can be pounded out to function fine. The Jaguar with all its crumple-zone technology looks like a hunk of junk. and this was from maybe a 20mph crash...some one stopped quick in front of her and even with 4 car lengths between us and travelling at 35 mph my brakes locked up and I couldnt stop so figure I hit her at about 20mph. Everyone was fine and while I drove my truck home...and to work today That jag got flatbedded. So as the saying goes.... There goes my insurance! By the way... anyone know a good source for cheap fist gen s-10 parts? :roll:

 

[Howell]

Chicken farms are a billion times worse. I'm not kidding. Until age 14 I lived in Central Illinois farm country. Cow crap you get used to. Pig crap you get used to. Chicken farms from 1/2 mile away smell worse than being sprayed by a skunk.

I kinda like the smell of skunk spray. I dislike pig farms the most.

I'm always on the lookout for ways to help families keep their farms and grazing land profitable so that they don't have to sell out to developers desiring to change horse farms into house farms.

 

[Fushigi]

I'd like an SUV or a minivan but won't commit until hybrids are out or some other technology is introduced to raise their efficiency.

I read over the weekend that Toyota's hybrid technology will be migrated into their Highlander crossover/SUV (and the Lexus RX) over the next couple of years, enabling it to get 35-40MPG. While I'm no fan of Toyotas in general and the Highlander specifically, this is a good move to see as it may encourage other manufacturers to follow suit.

 

[Fushigi]

Well I seem to have proven my own case....unfortunately.

First of all, I've very glad no one had any injuries worth noting. The worst aspect of any accident is what can happen to the vehicle occupants.

That said, the Jag did what it was supposed to do; it sacrificed itself to protect the occupants. But if your Jimmy had been equipped with antilock brakes, the accident may have been avoided altogether as you would have stopped in a shorter distance while maintaining steering control. So I would still say the argument regarding modern vehicles being safer stands.

Again, though, I'm just glad no one was injured.

As for parts, try the vehicle repair board at http://www.Edmunds.com .

 

[CougTek]

Well I seem to have proven my own case....unfortunately.

IMO, you proved the opposite. The weight of your vehicule almost certainly caused the accident. Would you have driven a car, you would have been able to stop in time or at least more than you did and therefore caused less damages to the Jag. Bottom line : your SUV was overall more dangerous than a car on the road.

The two road exits I had in my life would have been much worst if I would have had a truck. Both times I slipped out of the road and the reason I didn't tumbled twice was because of the low gravity center of my vehicule.

I think JTR once wrote that SUV drivers only care about their personal security and not to the amount of damage they cause to others. Reading how you seem proud of the low damages your Jimmy had in comparison to those of the Jag, well it kinda prove his point.

If you don''t believe that a car could have prevented this whole accident from happening, just measure the braking distance of your Jimmy at the speed you were going at the moment of the accident and compare it to the one of your mustang. Then think about how much your wallet would have been proud.

I don't mean to offend you, just to make you realise that your beloved thanks isn't as safe as you think it is. If not for you, then maybe for others.

 

[Buck]

Just as a note, the 1991 GMC Jimmy S15 and the 2000 Jaguar S Type both weigh roughly 3,800 pounds (more like 3,770).

 

[Handruin]

But if your Jimmy had been equipped with antilock brakes, the accident may have been avoided altogether as you would have stopped in a shorter distance while maintaining steering control

I'm sorry to hear about the accident Craig, I'm glad everyone is OK. Sounds like the Jag was badly crunched up compared to your Jimmy.

I'll have to disagree with anti-lock brakes decreasing the stopping distance. I've read in more case than one that they usually increase the distance it takes to stop. The added benefit of anti-lock brakes as I'm aware is to allow for control of the vehicle under full brake.

I find it rather interesting to read Buck's point about the weight of the Craig's vehicle being the same as the Jag...I have no idea if both vehicles would have the same stopping distance, but the point of the matter was weight. If Craig was able to lock up his wheels, then it becomes a matter of tires.

Bigger and heavier cars will eventually become the Darwin theory of automotive evolution. I think much like selective in nature; vehicles of all sorts will eventually work themselves out regardless of human intervention.

Coug, what would you (or anyone reading this) consider a reasonable weight for a vehicle, regardless of type? (SUV, Truck, car…etc) We all seem to stereotype the SUV and truck, but what it boils down to is weight.

 

[Buck]

We all seem to stereotype the SUV and truck, but what it boils down to is weight.

Weight isn't the only issue with SUVs. Although this is not a real problem with the GMC Jimmy since it is based on a small pickup truck chassis, with larger SUVs the ride-height increases the amount of damage that can be done by those behemoths. Automobiles provide the best protection when struck at bumper height. But when a monster SUV's bumper is several inches higher then a car's, the impact zone rises higher on the car where there is less protection. Granted, new cars are beginning to compensate for this, but the protection is still not very good. This is especially prevalent for side impacts. This same height disparity exists for those that put massive lift kits in their pickup trucks. Ironically, those that lower their vehicles are opening themselves up to more damage if an accident occurs.

As far as anti-lock brakes go, they do reduce the braking distance on slick surfaces, such as wet or icy conditions. Once wheels lock on a slippery surface, the weight and momentum of the vehicle will propel it forward with little inhibition as there is relatively little friction to slow the vehicle down On dry surfaces with much greater friction, the opposite often occurs. As has been mentioned, besides reducing the stopping distance on a slick surface, anti-lock brakes are designed to give the driver as much control over the vehicles steering as possible. This, of course, would help prevent the accident in the first place.

That 2000 Jaguar sustained such miserable looking damage for two reasons: (1) It is designed to sacrifice itself during an impact, progressively becoming stronger as you come closer to the passenger compartment. The weakest crumple zone are at the outer rear end and at the front end. The purpose for this is to lessen the impact felt by the passengers. Thus a 20mph hit feels like a 5 mph impact for them. Whereas in older designs, the passengers would feel almost the full 20mph impact as they hit there seatbelt or their head rest at full speed. (2) The exterior design of the vehicle limits the ability to absorb an impact and “bounce” back into shape (especially at 20mph). Most modern cars have such an integrated design, that exterior components are easily damaged during a minor impact, even at 5mph.

 

[Buck]

Yes, the multiple turbos are to counteract lag. The Volkswagen 1.8 liter 4-cylinder has two turbos for that same reason.

Does it??

Thanks for asking the question NRG. My impression was that they used a twin-turbo configuration, but Volkswagen has proven me wrong. They use a single turbo with a bypass valve that allows air to recirculate during idle and deceleration situations, leaving the turbine and compressor to spin freely. It also means the compressor uses the recirculated air to maintain a higher speed and a quicker response time.

 

[jtr1962]

Coug, what would you (or anyone reading this) consider a reasonable weight for a vehicle, regardless of type? (SUV, Truck, car…etc) We all seem to stereotype the SUV and truck, but what it boils down to is weight.

I mentioned somewhere above that a reasonable spread of weight for all types of vehicles, excluding heavy trucks and buses, would be a factor of 1.5 or less. If the lightest econobox is 2000 pounds, then the heaviest commonly used passenger vehicle should be 3000 pounds or under. Or you could use a range of 2670 to 4000 pounds. I wouldn't make the heaviest vehicle more than 4000 pounds. You can make a reasonably strong, safe, and roomy vehicle within those parameters.

As for anyone who may actually need a large SUV or pickup(and that's only people who need to tow a trailer, carry heavy loads, or drive off-road), that traffic should be segregated from regular car traffic along with heavy trucks and buses. This policy would prevent somebody who is driving an econobox from getting killed in an accident with a monster like a Hummer H2. Bottom line is that SUVs/pickups are not cars, nor should they be allowed to go the same places as cars do. The alternative of all vehicles tending towards 8,000 to 10,000 pounds for Darwinian reasons as you mentioned isn't acceptable for space or fuel economy reasons. Unless you have a special need for it, a vehicle that gets 8 to 10 mpg should be totally unacceptable in this day and age. 40 years ago we didn't know any better about the health and geopolitical effects of fossil fuel usage. Now we do.

 

[CougTek]

Ok, so scratch weight alone as the guilty factor. However, in most tests I saw, the average SUV trailed the average car in braking distance by 3 to 5 meters. And that's when measuring modern vehicules. Older SUVs had worst road handling than their modern decendants. Is it a question of the braking system not adapted to the type of vehicule or something that has to do with the height of the vehicule (most of the weight during braking being above the wheels rather than being the wheels), I'm not sure. What's obvious though is that an old SUV sucks at braking on paved road compared to a car.

Regarding the amount of damages caused, height is probably even more guilty than weight. I didn't thought about it this morning when I first replied. SUVs hit cars higher than their strong points and in their fragile sections (top of doors/windows, above bumpers, etc). That is possibly another reason explaining the amount of damages sustained by the Jag.

Regarding the weight of vehicules, well I'm not as drastic as JTR. I think we could go up to a 2x factor and perhaps a bit more if we set a minimum number of passengers per weight category. There are cars that are stupidly heavy IMO, like the newest Bentley. I mean, 5000lbs for a 4 passengers, come on (I don't know if it's really a 4 passengers, but I wouldn't see 7 persons into one of those car for sure).

We should pay more emphasis on height than on weight IMO. Vehicules with a bumper standing almost a foot above average should be excluded from urban roads. That and a braking system adapted to the size/weight of the vehicule, so that it doesn't brake 5 meters later than an econobox.

 

[CraigLC]

Well I seem to have proven my own case....unfortunately.

IMO, you proved the opposite. The weight of your vehicule almost certainly caused the accident. Would you have driven a car, you would have been able to stop in time or at least more than you did and therefore caused less damages to the Jag. Bottom line : your SUV was overall more dangerous than a car on the road.

The two road exits I had in my life would have been much worst if I would have had a truck. Both times I slipped out of the road and the reason I didn't tumbled twice was because of the low gravity center of my vehicule.

I think JTR once wrote that SUV drivers only care about their personal security and not to the amount of damage they cause to others. Reading how you seem proud of the low damages your Jimmy had in comparison to those of the Jag, well it kinda prove his point.

If you don''t believe that a car could have prevented this whole accident from happening, just measure the braking distance of your Jimmy at the speed you were going at the moment of the accident and compare it to the one of your mustang. Then think about how much your wallet would have been proud.

I don't mean to offend you, just to make you realise that your beloved thanks isn't as safe as you think it is. If not for you, then maybe for others.

cripes man let it go...firstly... my truck HAS anti lock brakes or whatever qualified as anti-loc in 1991. secondly the road was wet and the trooper told me I was one of 5 accidents on that stretch of road due to freak snow and slush. thirdly it was a downhill slope. It was a variety of things that contributed to the accident. her car crumbled because it was supposed to my car didnt because it wasn't supposed to bottom line. i'm not debating this crap anymore.. you like what you like and I will respect that fact. quit trying to preach to people and get off your high and mighty horse. My trans Am (not mustang) would have hit her too because she stopped suddenly to avoid hitting the guy in front of her. how you can generalize about an accident where you knew nothing except I hit somone is beyond me. Not once did you even ask if everyone was okay...you just jumped in guns blazing. Not everyone can afford a new car...if we can then we should have choices and options. I wont like the same thing everyone else does...and obviously niether will you... learn to respect other peoples opinions and realise its just that...an opinion which you will not change no matter what you say... the simple fact is I sustained body damage which is fixable by me at my home for under 300 bucks. I am unsure of her damage but it may have penetrated the trunk floor pan which isn't good. the plus side for her was that the passenger cabin was in no way harmed so it looks like the crumple zone did its job. I believe new cars CAN be safe. I believe this one was...after all...its a Jag for the money they spent it better be huh? :eekers:

 

[CraigLC]

One other thing... I could agree to a weight restriction...my truck would definitely fall as less then 4000 lbs and as for height...its lower then most trucks I see... its stock but it wasn't a jacked up truck originally. I did hit the jag on the topside of the rear bumper which is likely most of the reason for the damage to the rear panel.

 

[NRG = mc²]

Is it a question of the braking system not adapted to the type of vehicule or something that has to do with the height of the vehicule (most of the weight during braking being above the wheels rather than being the wheels), I'm not sure. What's obvious though is that an old SUV sucks at braking on paved road compared to a car.

Since any modern vehicle can lock its wheels up on a dry surface, I think its mostly down to the tyres and suspension.

There are cars that are stupidly heavy IMO, like the newest Bentley. I mean, 5000lbs for a 4 passengers, come on (I don't know if it's really a 4 passengers, but I wouldn't see 7 persons into one of those car for sure).

I agree with you but in contrast with SUVs, one in 500 cars is a Bentley so its not so significant. Unfortunately the EU set a new upper limit to emmisions a couple of years ago that made several cars including the 600hp Aston Martin Vantage LM and several other rare exotics fail and put out of production. I guess if the companies really wanted to they could do some fiddling about to reduce emissions but how significant is the pollution created by 50 of these cars existing in the entire world compared to even the smoke produced by all the nations smokers? :mrgrn:

As far as the truck vs. car goes, how much damage was sustained has little to do with the safety of its design. As far as the environment goes, everyone who can work at home should do so IMO. Even forgetting environmental issues, one only needs to look at the public transport systems in any modern country during rush hour to tell you that something just isn't right.

 

[Buck]

Strange that your Jimmy hit so high Craig. I figured that a combo of her rearend lift and your nose dive during hard braking, you'd be almost at the same height. Bad for her in this situation, as that Jag is pretty expensive to fix.

I didn't expect anyone to get hurt at 20mph with a bumper-to-bumper bash.

 

[CougTek]

Well I seem to have proven my own case....unfortunately.

That doesn't sound like an opinion. The hidden meaning of the above was, IMO, that you wanted to show what happened in your accident to prove that you were safer in your SUV than you would have been in a car. I simply argue that it isn't true, at least according to me and to the facts I've seen before (stats, reports, etc).

And I didn't ask if everyone was ok because a) I'm sure you would have mentioned it if you would have killed someone and b) I don't really care about people being implied in an accident hundred if not thousands of miles away from me. Sounds selfish, but would anyone here stop sleeping if I would provoke an accident with a, let's say, shool bus and caused the death of 45 kids. You can say yes to show others that you have a good conscience, but in thruth, you wouldn't give a shit.

I'm glad you changed your mind about the security level of modern cars, so that, in the future, you won't say that they look like "tin cans", giving the idea that they aren't safe vehicules.

 

[Pradeep]

Apparently it's going to be a pretty bad winter in Upstate NY, so I got some snow tires put on last week. Will be interesting to see the difference once the snow starts coming down.

 

[CraigLC]

I still think most compacts and even some mid size cars are tin cans. My 2000 Trans Am is about 80 percent plastic as far as body panels go... great dent resistance though. Weight of things like body panels has been reduced likely to compansate for all the related crap they put in the cars now...power everything...gadgets etc. the simple fact is that her car may or may not be totaled... i'm not sure...my truck drove home and needs a front bumper...one fender a grill and a head light bucket. I dont deny her car did what it was supposed to...and so did mine... as far as I know we all walked away..my truck will be on the road again and is still driven daily her car might be at an auction in the near future as a repairable. Not counting insurance (which will definitely cause me pain and angst) I honestly feel I came out on the lucky end. Her car was decently large... had that been a small Kia...Hyundai or event the smallers Toyotas or Hondas I have no doubt she would have been more seriously injured due to the fact that her car would have had less "zone" to crumple. You drive a pitifully small car due to choice or neccessity and you take your life into your own hands.

 

[Buck]

Quick question about the Prius. How is it pronounced?

Prius or Preeus? (Long i or long e?) I've heard it both ways, but those that have used the long e are foreigners that would normally pronounce the letter i as e in their native tongue anyway.

 

[CraigLC]

I have always heard it Pree-us they even did a news story on it locally when it first came out and called it that way.

 

[mubs]

Pree-us.

 

[Buck]

Thanks for the correction gentlemen, I will have to change my ways.

 

[The JoJo]

Apparently it's going to be a pretty bad winter in Upstate NY, so I got some snow tires put on last week. Will be interesting to see the difference once the snow starts coming down.

We finns can't help but laugh (sorry ) when we see pictures from the US when people are trying to drive with summer tires in snow and ice. Seems those places do have snow now and then, but it really caughts people by surprise?

We drive about 5 months a year with winter tires, with small metal "nubs" in them.

 

[e_dawg]

Ah, Finland. Home of the legendary Nokian Hakkapeliitta winter tires. What do you think of the new WR model? How does it compare to the NRW and Q?

 

[The JoJo]

I was just thinking about doing some deeper comparisons of those tires tomorrow, believe it or not!

How's life and hockey in Canada e_?

 

[e_dawg]

It is busy, JoJo. Finishing off my MBA, buying a condo. Yet, I still spend several hours a day on SR and SF!

 

[e_dawg]

And hockey, I rarely play anymore, but I do enjoy watching a good game of hockey on TV (tickets to see the Leafs are ridiculously expensive). There are some fine young hockey players coming out of Finland, BTW. Tuomo Ruutu, Joni Pitkanen, and Kari Lehtonen are 3 of the top prospects in the entire NHL! And of course, there was your friend Saku Koivu in his TPS Turku days.

And yourself, how is life in Turku? Have a snack at Aschan for me after you finish shopping at Hansa...

 

[jtr1962]

I still think most compacts and even some mid size cars are tin cans. My 2000 Trans Am is about 80 percent plastic as far as body panels go... great dent resistance though

This has more to do with the quality of construction than with the lack of weight. For example, filling hollow spaces under body panels with some sort of energy-absorbing foam would give these cars a more solid feel and offer greater crash protection without adding much weight. The key to crash protection is to absorb the crash energy somehow. You can absorb it by deforming metal permanently, or you can compress rubber or foam temporarily, and release the kinetic energy later in the form of heat(much as brake shoes turn KE into heat to stop a vehicle. Of course, it's easier and cheaper to just add weight and sheet metal, but also counterproductive. More weight means more energy to be absorbed in a crash, and dented sheet metal must be repaired or replaced. That might not be the case with energy absorbing foam. Finally, it needs to be said that current restraint systems are crap regardless of the other crash protection features. Five point racing car type restraints should be in every new car made. If they were, you might cut the annual fatality rate by a factor of ten or more.

Weight of things like body panels has been reduced likely to compansate for all the related crap they put in the cars now...power everything...gadgets etc.

I'm not a big fan of reducing structural weight to compensate for frivolous things like gadgets. Then again, if I owned a car about the only thing it would have inside besides controls, seats, and restraints would be climate control. I wouldn't even have a radio or CD player since I consider those distractions.

One other thing... I could agree to a weight restriction...my truck would definitely fall as less then 4000 lbs and as for height...its lower then most trucks I see... its stock but it wasn't a jacked up truck originally. I did hit the jag on the topside of the rear bumper which is likely most of the reason for the damage to the rear panel.

I'm glad to hear it, and none of the vehicles you drive are particularly outrageous anyway. I don't consider a weight restriction of 4000 pounds or thereabouts to be that limiting a factor in passenger car design. In fact, as I mentioned before weight is less of an issue on fuel economy if all cars were to start using regenerative braking, which they should. What I really want to see go by the wayside are boxy shapes, even for large vehicles. There is no good reason, for example, why SUVs, which already have a larger frontal area to begin with, are made even worse by their boxy shapes and protrusions like fog lights. Even econoboxes could be much better. I'm not overly impressed by the Prius' drag coefficient. I've heard we can go as low as maybe 0.12 in a driveable vehicle. Perhaps if we can reliably induce laminar flow, we can do far better than even that. Laminar flow is the holy grail of HPV designers since laminar drag increases in proportion to velocity rather than velocity². Obviously a huge potential for fuel savings exists if that knowledge can be applied to automotive design.

All that being said, I still feel SUVs don't belong on urban streets due to the higher damage potential an 8000+ pound vehicle has and the fact that the driver is likely not a professional like a bus or tractor-trailer driver. Somebody ran off the road with a Hummer near where I live and totaled somebody's house. I'm not kidding. This wouldn't have happened with a passenger car. The jerk wanted to get extra range and since the Hummer has such lousy fuel economy he had an extra 100 gallon tank put in. 100 gallons of gas plus fire is not a good thing for a house, although I heard the house was pretty much demolished just from the impact. All this because of some idiot GI Joe wanna-be .

 

[The JoJo]

And yourself, how is life in Turku? Have a snack at Aschan for me after you finish shopping at Hansa...

I will! When are you coming over to see some new prospects? TPS won a match again on sunday, so they might have some good youngsters in their ranks now.

Sorry about off-topic inserts here folks...

 

[Bartender]

By the way, I saw a Prius in action the other day. Fancy little thing. The owner started it up and you could hear the engine turn over, then start and then stop. The car was on, but the engine was no longer needed. She backed out of her parking space silently and drove off all under electric power. Very nice (not like Buck's loud oil burner).