Sixty8panther

Variance: I agree, but then again consider it cost the General more money to shut down Olds then it would have to just keep the brand alive. NOTHING makes sense about how Olds got euthanized. I've criticized the early 2000s Olds lineup just like the next guy but I'd still rather have a lineup of FWD Acura wannabe Oldsmobiles than NO Olds what so ever. As long as the brand was alive a ZETA, SIGMA & other more traditional cars would have been inevidable. Hell if you're going to have several FWD cars then at least make a modern Toronado, FWD but with a longitudinaly mounted pushrod V8 & true full size proportions inside & out. I bet it would sell better than a Grand Am with rib-cladding-delete & a relocated twin port grille. ------------------ ~ Silvester AKA Chapman 1983 Plymouth Champ: FWD, clamshell hood, 4-banger & 8-speed passanger seat: XP715, driver's seat: SpeedingPenguin

10: NO FLY 4: FLY Seems like NOS is in the Minority. Woot, woot, woot-woot! ------------- ~ Silvester AKA Chapman 1983 Plymouth Champ: FWD, clamshell hood, 4-banger & 8-speed passanger seat: XP715, driver's seat: SpeedingPenguin

Funny how O.B. threads seem to end up in some random collection of non-sequitors like this...

That's wicked $hitty & disrespectful. Those memorials should be left there as a reminder to others of how easy it is to end up dead on the side of the road. There's a raod near Flagstaf, AZ where the number of crosses is simply perplexing. It's really spooky (not complaining) when you're driving along in the desert and there's about 4-10 crosses per mile on the side of the road, and some of them, (this is messed up) arranged as if it was a family that persished... two big crosses and two small ones in a row.

I'm going to take a hot shower now and wash off with sandpaper!

Glad to see you did it dude! I'm Pantehr, Sixty8 & I approve this thread, I encouraged it when CK suggested it. I'm going to the fridge right now to get sloshed... I'll be posting here later tonight!

Seriously, Mythbusters needs to settle this one, although there is no doubt in my mind the plane is not taking off.

More "spiritual" than "religious" since religion tends to be a dirty word in 2006, but in any case please do. I can not even imagine a loss that severe... four kids gone in the blink of an eye.

I knew Fly was an aviation buff but is he a pilot too? Hmmm... either way I sent you a PM a few min ago. (Fly)

The speed of an escalator at the mall is a constant. You, I and most athletic people can overcome a constant of like 4mph. But if you started running at 4mph up the escalator and it accelerated to 8mph then you'd still be moving at 4 mph in REVERSE. At no point in Nick's example or anywhere on the net was it established that the conveyor belt tops out at a certain speed or that it is a constant.

Look out for the Seven Horsemen... me and Fly agree 100%. :wink:

Most of you should know what this is all about. Just curious as to what the breakdown is at this point. http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...?showtopic=9817

Your parents have a Mercedes "Truck" and you live in California. You're right in the bulls eye of the Starbucks demographic.

We're over analyzing the problem??? Are you kidding me? You guys are talking about all kinds of math here. Check this out: CB = conveyor belt AS = air speed WS = wheel speed P = aircraft P pushes itself down the CB... it accelerates using the thrust of its engines, we all know a plane does not push itslef down a runway using wheels & axles, I hope all of us knew that fropm the begining otherwise how would it sustain air speed once airborne. Anyway.... AS = 0mph when treadmill is stationary. Other than a 10mph wind or what have you, not relevant to AS. WS = 100mph (sensors in the wheel tell the CB to accelerate to 100mph) AS= 0 since 100mph -100mph = 0 (zero) so now the plane only has the friction of the wheels preventing it from pushing itself down the runway & accelerating to an AS high enough for takeoff... the force of 2/3/4 turbines easily negates the 100mph of the CB... so the plane accelerates to 200 (on the CB not relative to the ground) (sensors in the wheel tell the CB to accelerate to 200mph) and this goes on and on and on untill (in theory) infinity. Either way the plane CAN NOT fly even if the treadmill is going light speed so long as the aircraft is stationary. Ropes, rockets, cars in neutral, roller skates and all the other things yoy can throw at this problem do NOT change the fact that the CB is preventing AS from reaching even 1mph nevermind the 120 required for flight.

That's simplifying things quite a bit. According to that logic the Camry is 15+ years old under the skin and the Ranger & Crown Vic. are 25 years old, actually those are much more fair comparisons than the Opel/F-body one.

You have not eaten true beef jerkey unless you've bought some at a gas station in Maine. I'm NOT kiddin' either. The good stuff does not have a brand name and it does NOT come in a plastic bag. It's sold out of a plexiglass box and wrapped in wax paper. Almost any decent gas station around Bar Harbour & Old Orchard Beach has the good stuff. It costs $2 for a slice the size of a legal envelope and once you've had it you'll never call anything else "beef jerky". It's like a glass of $200 Red Merlot compared to a warm Bud Light in a plastic cup.

Holy $hit! 190 proof. How much does it cost like $100/liter?

http://www.veoh.com/videoDetails.html?v=e85456p2znpMRm I'm not a Republican but I'm definately NOT a Democrat either... I thought I'd share this not for political reasons but just because it's a funny attempt at humor, or perhaps a serious commentary that's desguised as a joke. Either way "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there...!" [/L.C.G.]

Wow... that brings a whole new meaning to the title of this thread. I was just commenting on a local tragedy, now Aaaantoine has a story that really hits home. Four kids killed like that with theior whole lives ahead of them, that's messed up. Not to be a prick but that video in the second link tells me speed was a factor if nothing else. Those skidmarks should have slowed the car to a stop even if it was going like 55/60. Not that it matters now but seatbelts were NOT used IMHO. That Avalon was not exactly broken in two and shattered. Most of the damage seemed to be in the driver's side door and A-pillar. Either way buddy you have my condolances. ~ Silvester AKA Chapman The greatest automobile ever conceived by man: two shifters, FWD & small enough to be driven into the back of a matching red Plymouth TrailDuster.

Wow... the SIXTEEN is in this cheesy flick!?!?!? I love Adam Sandler, I like Cristopher Walken... (even if he did attend the "William Shatner School of Acting") but the preview made it seem a little cheesy. I don't care if its cheesier than a bag of Cheetos now though, if the SIXTEEN makes a cameo I'll see it even if Barbara Streisand make sa guest appearance.

Super 88 Roadtrip!!! [i wich I had the ga$]

1998: A Starbucks opened up in Andover Mass... shortly after I walked inside for the first time. (both ot that location and Starbucks in general) I was not totally clueless to what Starbucks was, in other words a coffee shop for people too f&%$ing important and "worldly" to frequent a regular coffee shop. I walked up to the counter and asked: "It's my first time in here ever, what kind of a coffee would you recomend?" The little snotty b!tch who was about 3 years younger than I said "This is Starbucks!., we don't sell coffee!" She said the word 'coffee' as if I had ordered up a fu*&ing 1/4 pounder w/ cheese at McDonalds. I walked out & have never gone into one again except to hang out with the ex who liked some overpriced beverage they have. She's noit really a snob & we'd both make fun of their super-liberal, tree huggin' self loathing customers. I hate snotty people like that. Perhaps I'll go to a Starbucks again someday... I'll pull up in a 1985 Chevy C/K Blazer in black primer and a conferedate flag front plate, walk in & ask for a coffee: black & a chocolate doh-nut. All just to piss off a little snotty bitch who was versed by their corporate employee handbook to say: we don't sell coffee. Then I'll get back in my nasty truck, crank G&R again and do a burnout in their well landscaped parking lot.

I think you guys need to check what the experts are saying, as in look in the links Nick posted! There's inteligent people on BOTH ends of the argument but I think the majority are right: The plane is NOT going anywhere unless you impose the concept of mechanical limitations of the landing gear,treadmill etc. but even then it begs the question what about the mechanical limits of the engines? It takes a lot a power to roll rubber & steel at near infiniti! At any rate here's a few inteligent explanations: Yup... that's pretty self explanitory to me. Exactly! It does NOT say it matches the plane's speed as relative to the conveyor belt or air speed or wahtever, it just says "speed"which means ANY speed or velocity. Therefore any engineer would assume that ANY and all forward motion is negated by the belt! The people that really crack me up ar the ones on that Physics Forum that say the plane would take off FASTER if it was on the "treadmill runway" now that's funny! Extra friction = MORE speed? I'll have to put my parking brake on in the Datsun next time I race at New England Dragway, maybe I'll run 10.9 in the 1/4 mile!!!

You keep missing the point dude... In this HYPOTHETICAL scenario even as the speed of the wheels approaches infiniti the treadmill keeps up with the wheels so that the forward motion of the plane as relative to the stationary ground and air is counteracted. Yes... it's not realistic but neither is a treadmill the size of manhatan! The plane can NOT move forward because the treadmil counteracts any forward movemetn by the plane via the frictioin of the wheel bearings as its wheels start spinning at infinitesimal speeds. Yes, theoretically IF the plane was just on a plain treadmill spinning at some crazy speed like mach 3 (2200mph) and say to keep math simple the plane needs to accelerate to 100mph in order to reach enough wind speed velocity to take off, then (remmeber no speed sensors on wheels) the plane would push itself to 100mph a lot slower than normal as it's wheels would have to be spinning at 2300 mph in order of it to be able to take off. Theoreticaly even this scenario has a boat load of problems like the relative traction of the wheels to the runway etc... the wheels would probably melt & or break off. But back to our example: the plane's wheels are touching the ground and so as long as traction exists the reverse movement of the treadmill negates any forward movement generated by the engines. All these "solid rocket strapped to a car roof on a dyno" examples lack the element of the speed sensors hooked up to a MOTORIZED treadmill.

Oh $hit yeah, the Maxima would jump off the treadmill and into a tree or other stationary object in that scenario. From the way it was written it sounds like no matter how much thrust the plane generates the tread mill keeps up so that the plane does not actually move relative ot the stationary ground. In other words, with the friction of the wheels spinning at XXX mph the plane is still standing still even though such a treadmill does not exist that is the way I read it.