Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

dino001

They may actually be actively trained NOT to do it. Pilots have to adhere to the procedures in their training, if it says do not switch something off until step 25 in he procedure, it may be fine at 30 thousand feet, but not so much 1000 feet, or less. But then there is another side - most accidents, especially in early times, were due to real pilot's poor decisions, sometimes something simple like pulling the stick up too much at wrong speed and altitude, etc. Computers are very good in eliminating those really blatant errors and we don't want to go back into "completely manual" flying. The stakes are too high. The trick becomes in integration of that interaction and weighing each input.

As I was said before, I can't wait until the autonomous driving technology will take away my steering wheel, as long it also takes them from those who are currently road menaces (I will gladly pay the "fun" price for the safety), but unfortunately I don't expect that to happen any time soon. The number of variables and prejudice is still too high.

ruking1

oldfarmer50 said:

dino001 said:

Talking "people die" - looks like 737 MAX is now grounded everywhere except the US. I'm sure it will come soon, can't see FAA holding out for much longer. I'm sure it will all be fine in a large scheme of things, but there is something strange. Even if it's two unrelated pilot errors, a larger question may be about how much was it because of new technology/training deficiencies and how much it was poor decisions as pilots. The grounding me be an overkill after all, but perhaps it's needed to avert even a bigger panic (like people refusing to board in large numbers).

From what I gathered, even though it's similar, the plane is really different in a way it flies, especially climbs. Larger engines, more thrust, cause the nose to pitch up much more dramatically than the previous gens, so computers are intervening much more decisively than in the previous gens. If pilots aren't fully aware of that and get caught with unexpected overcompensation, things could get dicey really fast, especially in first few minutes on the flight. Or so I heard.

Modern pilots may be so conditioned to let the computers fly that they overlook simple saves such as just turning the system off and flying manually. Kind of like young folks who can’t drive a stick.

BTW, this would be a great time to buy Boeing stock.

Absolutely yes! Load up the cargo plane. 😩😜😎

News just out: the copilot has something like 200 hours of flight time! GEEZ! 47 years ago, one needed 32 hours (flight time) just to get a ppl (bug smashers) !

driver100

qbrozen said:

On a different topic, I’m looking to receive backyard mechanic of the week award.

Finally started in on changing the tires on the T&C, which have seen 56k miles. Pulled it in, got my equipment organized and ready to go, went to loosen the lugs and ... Ran into problem one when I could not find the wheel lock. $20 to order a replacement is easier to me than going back to the dealer, who has been rotating them with each oil change. Received the new key on Friday. 

Sunday, I start over. Back it in, jack up the rear, remove the wheels, etc. First one gives me a bit of a fit when trying to seat the bead, but I get it after a little fussing. The second one, however, would NOT SEAT no matter what I did or what chemicals I applied! After a couple of hours, I give up. Back inside the house, I order some gunk on amazon to create a temp seal that allows the tire sides to expand and seat. Now here I am yesterday, van in the air hanging half out of the garage, and I need to leave the house unattended starting 5pm and amazon says my stuff won’t arrive till 9pm. UGH. 

Racking my brain and searching the garage and house, I came upon something... peanut butter. Why the hell not? It is cheaper than the stuff I ordered anyway and we have LOTS of it. BTW, I already had spread a 12-oz can of bearing grease, but that was not nearly enough to surround a van tire. Sooo... on went a 16-oz jar of smooth natural PB. It worked! Made a god awful mess, but it worked. Pic is after I scraped off most of the excess. 

Now the mice will come and eat the rubber because they love peanut butter.
This is a real case of taking the tires "to the guy".

driver100

ruking1 said:

This is a way different topic. Just received a letter advising the 2014 MB GLK 250 BT is recalled for the (famous) air bags. I’m guessing that there is no stock, so they are telling us to wait for another letter to make an appointment with a dealer.

I got the letter for the 2014 C250....called and made an appointment...they had stock, made an appointment, they did it, took about 90 minutes.
You can look up if your car has been recalled....google recalls notices....just put in your VIN number and it will tell you what has to be done.

houdini2

oldfarmer50 said:

dino001 said:

Talking "people die" - looks like 737 MAX is now grounded everywhere except the US. I'm sure it will come soon, can't see FAA holding out for much longer. I'm sure it will all be fine in a large scheme of things, but there is something strange. Even if it's two unrelated pilot errors, a larger question may be about how much was it because of new technology/training deficiencies and how much it was poor decisions as pilots. The grounding me be an overkill after all, but perhaps it's needed to avert even a bigger panic (like people refusing to board in large numbers).

From what I gathered, even though it's similar, the plane is really different in a way it flies, especially climbs. Larger engines, more thrust, cause the nose to pitch up much more dramatically than the previous gens, so computers are intervening much more decisively than in the previous gens. If pilots aren't fully aware of that and get caught with unexpected overcompensation, things could get dicey really fast, especially in first few minutes on the flight. Or so I heard.

Modern pilots may be so conditioned to let the computers fly that they overlook simple saves such as just turning the system off and flying manually. Kind of like young folks who can’t drive a stick.

BTW, this would be a great time to buy Boeing stock.

oldfarmer50 said:

dino001 said:

Talking "people die" - looks like 737 MAX is now grounded everywhere except the US. I'm sure it will come soon, can't see FAA holding out for much longer. I'm sure it will all be fine in a large scheme of things, but there is something strange. Even if it's two unrelated pilot errors, a larger question may be about how much was it because of new technology/training deficiencies and how much it was poor decisions as pilots. The grounding me be an overkill after all, but perhaps it's needed to avert even a bigger panic (like people refusing to board in large numbers).

From what I gathered, even though it's similar, the plane is really different in a way it flies, especially climbs. Larger engines, more thrust, cause the nose to pitch up much more dramatically than the previous gens, so computers are intervening much more decisively than in the previous gens. If pilots aren't fully aware of that and get caught with unexpected overcompensation, things could get dicey really fast, especially in first few minutes on the flight. Or so I heard.

Modern pilots may be so conditioned to let the computers fly that they overlook simple saves such as just turning the system off and flying manually. Kind of like young folks who can’t drive a stick.

BTW, this would be a great time to buy Boeing stock.

oldfarmer50 said:

dino001 said:

Talking "people die" - looks like 737 MAX is now grounded everywhere except the US. I'm sure it will come soon, can't see FAA holding out for much longer. I'm sure it will all be fine in a large scheme of things, but there is something strange. Even if it's two unrelated pilot errors, a larger question may be about how much was it because of new technology/training deficiencies and how much it was poor decisions as pilots. The grounding me be an overkill after all, but perhaps it's needed to avert even a bigger panic (like people refusing to board in large numbers).

From what I gathered, even though it's similar, the plane is really different in a way it flies, especially climbs. Larger engines, more thrust, cause the nose to pitch up much more dramatically than the previous gens, so computers are intervening much more decisively than in the previous gens. If pilots aren't fully aware of that and get caught with unexpected overcompensation, things could get dicey really fast, especially in first few minutes on the flight. Or so I heard.

Modern pilots may be so conditioned to let the computers fly that they overlook simple saves such as just turning the system off and flying manually. Kind of like young folks who can’t drive a stick.

BTW, this would be a great time to buy Boeing stock.

It's down about $60. a share over the last couple of days. I'm tempted, but it is somewhat dicey to try an catch a falling knife. I have tried this before and I usually jump in too soon..and it keeps falling.

qbrozen

No mayo in my house.

Van doesn’t live in the garage. I used a fair amount of brake cleaner to get the PB off. Seemed like it froze overnight and driving it this morn it sounded like it was all flying off. Car wash should take care of the rest. Pretty sure we’ll be just fine. LOL

I’m not one to surrender a repair to someone else once begun. To me, that would be like starting an essay, a poem, a math problem, or a painting and halfway through hand it to someone else to finish. 

driver100

dino001 said:

They may still ground them until the modification is performed. That could be just a few days/weeks. Right now it's banned pretty much everywhere else until "further notice".

Airplane manufacturing! One error and and all these planes worth $ 100s of millions are grounded.....what a predicament to be in. Are these planes going to be grounded and scrapped if it is a design error that can't be fixed, or if people don't want to fly on them?

Mr_Shiftright

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

driver100

Mars Dog Food company went in the toilet when dogs started dying....BP Oil went into the toilet after the oil spill, then they all come back stronger than ever once they solve the problem. I could have made $ millions on these incidents....if I had the guts!

driver100

qbrozen said:

No mayo in my house.

Van doesn’t live in the garage. I used a fair amount of brake cleaner to get the PB off. Seemed like it froze overnight and driving it this morn it sounded like it was all flying off. Car wash should take care of the rest. Pretty sure we’ll be just fine. LOL

I’m not one to surrender a repair to someone else once begun. To me, that would be like starting an essay, a poem, a math problem, or a painting and halfway through hand it to someone else to finish. 

You might have dogs coming around and sniffing and peeing on your tires

Mr_Shiftright

driver100 said:

Mars Dog Food company went in the toilet when dogs started dying....BP Oil went into the toilet after the oil spill, then they all come back stronger than ever once they solve the problem. I could have made $ millions on these incidents....if I had the guts!

Boeing really is "too big to fail".

driver100

I think they said that about GM.....probably Kodak to name a few!

Mr_Shiftright

Both are still here! But Boeing is different. They and Airbus pretty much own the global show. It's like, as if GM, Ford Toyota, Mercedes, BMW and Honda were one company.

ruking1

Yes, sensors and software do not induce those kinds of actions. If it is hard or soft wire to do that like another poster mention the pilot should be able to take over. They could’ve gotten some FOD. It could’ve been a consequence of P POOR maintenance.

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

Ditto! Aircraft sales is one of the biggest USA exports. It is also # 27 on the S&P 500 according to Fortune magazine. It is also one of the biggest examples of the old school/style big unions.

Yes, sensors and software do not induce those kinds of actions. IF it is hard or soft wire to do that (like another poster mention) the pilot/s should be able to take over. They could’ve gotten some FOD. It could’ve been a consequence of P POOR maintenance.

andres3

oldfarmer50 said:

andres3 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

stickguy said:

I hate winter.

just had an interesting piece on the local news. Apparently Volvo will be implementing governers on all their cars next year, capping them at 112. Kinda defeats the purpose of the Polestar tune models! Pretty sure that will be plenty for me, though might hurt sales in Germany.

nothing to do with economy. It is for safety. Though if you are already over 110, what the heck, might as well keep going!

I bet a lot of cars have speed limiters on them but it’s not advertised. I think my Mustang is limited to something like 155 while the old V6 was topped at 105. I suspect that most cars become unstable at speeds over 100 without aero mods.

Even 80's Honda's were pretty stable at 100 MPH, without aero mods.

We are not talking about streets with 90 degree turns here,people go 100 where there is plenty of straight or nearly straight tarmac.

Even the Neon was OK at 100 MPH. For instance, when the head gaskets were bad, and the coolant low because of the leakage, the air flow would keep the engine from overheating.

I’m not sure I can take the word of anyone who would take a hooptie Neon with a blown head gasket up to 100.

Now I didn't say I took it to 100 with blown gaskets, probably topped out at 80 or 85 at most that day.

However, the Neon could go 100 MPH on a closed course legally and safely. I had the "sport" model, so it had slightly bigger and better tires.

andres3

henryn said:

stickguy said:

I know. It was a theoretical. Point being, I’m not hung up on “a mustang/beast sized PU has to have a V8 or it’s junk”. It could have a flux capacitor or Ronco bass o matic under the hood if it did the job.

I am in agreement with your position. While a flux capacitor would be interesting, I'm not sure they could get enough horsepower out of a Ronco bass o matic. But if they could, I would be okay with that.

On the subject of needing a "V8 for a beast sized PU", I owned a 2013 F150 with the 5.0 V8, and traded it in for a 2015 with the 2.7L twin turbo V6. The turbo was better in every respect. Faster under any conditions, more responsive, and better gas mileage. I think they only continue selling the V8 for people who won't buy anything else, and those who really want to install a loud cat back system.

Some people might think the V8 will give them longer life service, and therefore end up costing them less in the long run. However, they probably haven't done the math with gas prices.

ruking1

I for one am totally against arbitrarily dialing down speed limiters.

henryn

qbrozen said:

On a different topic, I’m looking to receive backyard mechanic of the week award.

Finally started in on changing the tires on the T&C, which have seen 56k miles. Pulled it in, got my equipment organized and ready to go, went to loosen the lugs and ... Ran into problem one when I could not find the wheel lock. $20 to order a replacement is easier to me than going back to the dealer, who has been rotating them with each oil change. Received the new key on Friday. 

Sunday, I start over. Back it in, jack up the rear, remove the wheels, etc. First one gives me a bit of a fit when trying to seat the bead, but I get it after a little fussing. The second one, however, would NOT SEAT no matter what I did or what chemicals I applied! After a couple of hours, I give up. Back inside the house, I order some gunk on amazon to create a temp seal that allows the tire sides to expand and seat. Now here I am yesterday, van in the air hanging half out of the garage, and I need to leave the house unattended starting 5pm and amazon says my stuff won’t arrive till 9pm. UGH. 

Racking my brain and searching the garage and house, I came upon something... peanut butter. Why the hell not? It is cheaper than the stuff I ordered anyway and we have LOTS of it. BTW, I already had spread a 12-oz can of bearing grease, but that was not nearly enough to surround a van tire. Sooo... on went a 16-oz jar of smooth natural PB. It worked! Made a god awful mess, but it worked. Pic is after I scraped off most of the excess. 

Back maybe 15 years ago, I bought two new tires for the rear of a ZTR lawn mower. Those suckers are really wide (maybe 10 or 12 inches wide on the rim), and thus very hard to seal. I bought them through a local tire shop, in the small town where I was living at the time. They ordered the tires for me, and I took in the wheels to have the new tires mounted.

Those suckers did NOT want to seal. No way, no how. Just flat out too wide of a rim, and the new tires were stiff and not nearly as wide at the bead. The guy who owned the tire shop (small, 2 man operation) had a 5 gallon bucket of axle grease sitting there. You can guess what happened next.

To make a long story short, he did get the tires sealed. But I swear he used half of that 5 gallon bucket of grease to make it happen. Which led me to wonder if he wound up losing money on the deal.

ON EDIT: I just looked, axle grease is not that expensive if you buy 5 gallons at a time, so I guess he didn't lose money. It still looked really wasteful to me, but I was just glad I wasn't doing the job.

ruking1

andres3 said:

henryn said:

stickguy said:

I know. It was a theoretical. Point being, I’m not hung up on “a mustang/beast sized PU has to have a V8 or it’s junk”. It could have a flux capacitor or Ronco bass o matic under the hood if it did the job.

I am in agreement with your position. While a flux capacitor would be interesting, I'm not sure they could get enough horsepower out of a Ronco bass o matic. But if they could, I would be okay with that.

On the subject of needing a "V8 for a beast sized PU", I owned a 2013 F150 with the 5.0 V8, and traded it in for a 2015 with the 2.7L twin turbo V6. The turbo was better in every respect. Faster under any conditions, more responsive, and better gas mileage. I think they only continue selling the V8 for people who won't buy anything else, and those who really want to install a loud cat back system.

Some people might think the V8 will give them longer life service, and therefore end up costing them less in the long run. However, they probably haven't done the math with gas prices.

That’s why diesel is so very good. I absolutely loved the V6’s 3.0 L 406 # ft of torque! The 4 cyl. 2.1 L twin turbo posts 369 # ft of torque The fuel perspective changes thinking in terms of 250,000 miles + life cycle mileage (11,905 gal/6,944 gal) rather than 5,000 to 14,000 miles a year.

So for example (my) 18,000 miles per year, 500 gal per yr are consumed(fuel $ cost per mile driven) vs like model gas @ 857 gal per yr.

henryn

Michaell said:

I have a friend with a Bolt and a friend with a Tesla---well, acquaintances if you will---and the difference in what they paid was $20K. So yeah, the Model 3 is overall a better car, but the question remains---$20K better? It's certainly a reasonable question to ask and has nothing to do with not liking one brand or another--this is a debate with quantitative info on the table.

Same is true with ICE cars - is a 5-series $20K better than an Avalon?

How much of a premium is the brand worth? That is an individual question.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- end quoted material =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

To me, a 5 series is not worth $20k more than an Avalon. But as you said, that is relative (to the individual).

I sometimes have real problems understanding the price spread for a "loaded model" over a more "base model", within the same make and model. Sometimes the price will nearly double, and that seems outlandish to me.

henryn

qbrozen said:

No mayo in my house.

Van doesn’t live in the garage. I used a fair amount of brake cleaner to get the PB off. Seemed like it froze overnight and driving it this morn it sounded like it was all flying off. Car wash should take care of the rest. Pretty sure we’ll be just fine. LOL

I’m not one to surrender a repair to someone else once begun. To me, that would be like starting an essay, a poem, a math problem, or a painting and halfway through hand it to someone else to finish. 

I tend to share that attitude myself. I hate to start a job and not be able to finish. My ex-wife looked on that as a character defect, and as I get older I'm beginning to wonder if she wasn't right.

My attitudes towards "giving up" has not really changed. But I will admit to being a little more careful about what jobs I do undertake.

ab348

dino001 said:

They may still ground them until the modification is performed. That could be just a few days/weeks. Right now it's banned pretty much everywhere else until "further notice".

The thing is, on international flights they are already grounded because they cannot fly into those countries. A couple of Halifax-London flights use the 737 Max and were cancelled today as they are banned from UK airspace right now.

imidazol97

oldfarmer50 said:

BTW, this would be a great time to buy Boeing stock.

Too late. It dropped yesterday, but was back up this morning. I haven't been home long enough to check this afternoon.

I did well on American Airlines when they had the thunderstorm crash in Dallas Ft Worth long, long ago.

ruking1

ab348 said:

dino001 said:

They may still ground them until the modification is performed. That could be just a few days/weeks. Right now it's banned pretty much everywhere else until "further notice".

The thing is, on international flights they are already grounded because they cannot fly into those countries. A couple of Halifax-London flights use the 737 Max and were cancelled today as they are banned from UK airspace right now.

Yes, the utter stupidity has long since started. It’s too bad politico decision making is getting involved in this.

ab348

dino001 said:

stickguy said:

Better safe them sorry territory?

And even if technically pilot error, did the plane cause a risky condition through faulty sensors or programming that the pilots weren’t able to handle?

That's the biggest question. Not all "pilot errors" are the same. Some are personal poor choices, some could be induced by lack/poor training, or unrecognized conditions. Remember crash of A320 over Long Island? It was technically "pilot error", but it was induced literally by wrong training by American Airlines. Overcompensation for wake vortex resulted in loss of the tail section.

Back in March of 2015 Air Canada flight 624 from Toronto (an A320) was coming into YHZ in a snowstorm. Visibility was poor in the snow. Pilots were apparently trained not to attempt to land if visibility was less than 1/2 mile. Controllers told them it had improved from 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile so they started their glide. They set the auto pilot to do this for them. Apparently that can take them down on the right trajectory to about 200 feet.

In this case there was apparently some wind that caused the plane to go lower than the expected trajectory. Pilots were apparently not trained to check the altitude in this procedure and the s/w did not alert them. They took over at lower than expected altitude and quickly found themselves way too low. Tried to throttle up but the tail hit the ground and they took out the localizer and some landing lights before bouncing up on to the runway and skidding to a stop. Air Canada and the govt officials called it a "hard landing" but it sure looked like a crash to me.

https://youtu.be/cT2s506_0kk

imidazol97

driver100 said:

You might have dogs coming around and sniffing and peeing on your tires

I can see squirrels and chipmunks being attracted in this area. Of course, we don't know if it was crunchy or smooth peanut butter...?

houdini2

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

Strangely enough, I have done that a few times before. It is sort of like doubling your bet when you lose at Black Jack, etc. Sometimes it even works. I think this would be a good stock to go ahead and buy because whatever the problem is, if there is a problem, it could be an easy fix.

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

tyguy said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

No, as I stated, they did not hypermile. This is based on normal driving, under very good conditions for an EV.

The Kias are certainly CUV-ish, and besides, the Tesla Model X is not a very good product, turns out.

What I need is storage, not CUV styling. Around 35 cu ft in the back with the back seats up. I'm not a fan of the X, either. I hate the rear doors and the overall styling.

Sorry, but the Bolt just can't hit 300 miles without non-typical driving conditions. Not because it's a bad car or anything, but because the battery is too small. Do they have an energy graph and average speed? It's like someone with a Ford Explorer getting 40 MPG, and then you find out the drove it the entire way downhill with wind at their back and turned off the motor during the straightaway sections.

I can assure you once again that the Bolt was not driven under hypermiling. This is an actual real world result.

Conditions were close to ideal with temperature reading from 50 to 60-ish degrees. 100 or so of the miles were on the highway @ 50-60 mph, with the remaining 200 miles being in city driving. Battery was fully depleted at the end of the test.

Here is a video report if you're interested:

https://insideevs.com/driving-300-miles-single-charge-chevrolet-bolt-video/

Between 50 and 60 degrees.....so real world conditions if you don't need air conditioning or heat...or get stuck in a traffic jam. Where can I be sure to find those conditions 24/7?

Also 50 to 60 MPH is ridiculously slow for a 100 mile trip. Let's be real here. Maybe it was tested on Mars and the lower gravity helped.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all. If you commute in an area where most EVs are sold--that is, using the EV the way most people use them, I doubt you would even AVERAGE 50 mph most days. Certainly not in the SF Bay area, where a boatload of Teslas are sold.

Did you happen to watch the Bolt video? I thought the guy was being very fair-minded, and certainly in no way duplicitous.

I have a friend with a Bolt and a friend with a Tesla---well, acquaintances if you will---and the difference in what they paid was $20K. So yeah, the Model 3 is overall a better car, but the question remains---$20K better? It's certainly a reasonable question to ask and has nothing to do with not liking one brand or another--this is a debate with quantitative info on the table.

Fair point. I look at cars as something to enjoy on a road trip. I don't think of it as a commuting appliance. As a commuting appliance, 50-60 MPH might make sense in the worst Cities in the world. In San Diego, my long commute has stretches of high speed I15 North, and going 60 MPH would make my commute horribly longer (in time).

ruking1

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

tyguy said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

No, as I stated, they did not hypermile. This is based on normal driving, under very good conditions for an EV.

The Kias are certainly CUV-ish, and besides, the Tesla Model X is not a very good product, turns out.

What I need is storage, not CUV styling. Around 35 cu ft in the back with the back seats up. I'm not a fan of the X, either. I hate the rear doors and the overall styling.

Sorry, but the Bolt just can't hit 300 miles without non-typical driving conditions. Not because it's a bad car or anything, but because the battery is too small. Do they have an energy graph and average speed? It's like someone with a Ford Explorer getting 40 MPG, and then you find out the drove it the entire way downhill with wind at their back and turned off the motor during the straightaway sections.

I can assure you once again that the Bolt was not driven under hypermiling. This is an actual real world result.

Conditions were close to ideal with temperature reading from 50 to 60-ish degrees. 100 or so of the miles were on the highway @ 50-60 mph, with the remaining 200 miles being in city driving. Battery was fully depleted at the end of the test.

Here is a video report if you're interested:

https://insideevs.com/driving-300-miles-single-charge-chevrolet-bolt-video/

Between 50 and 60 degrees.....so real world conditions if you don't need air conditioning or heat...or get stuck in a traffic jam. Where can I be sure to find those conditions 24/7?

Also 50 to 60 MPH is ridiculously slow for a 100 mile trip. Let's be real here. Maybe it was tested on Mars and the lower gravity helped.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all. If you commute in an area where most EVs are sold--that is, using the EV the way most people use them, I doubt you would even AVERAGE 50 mph most days. Certainly not in the SF Bay area, where a boatload of Teslas are sold.

Did you happen to watch the Bolt video? I thought the guy was being very fair-minded, and certainly in no way duplicitous.

I have a friend with a Bolt and a friend with a Tesla---well, acquaintances if you will---and the difference in what they paid was $20K. So yeah, the Model 3 is overall a better car, but the question remains---$20K better? It's certainly a reasonable question to ask and has nothing to do with not liking one brand or another--this is a debate with quantitative info on the table.

Fair point. I look at cars as something to enjoy on a road trip. I don't think of it as a commuting appliance. As a commuting appliance, 50-60 MPH might make sense in the worst Cities in the world. In San Diego, my long commute has stretches of high speed I15 North, and going 60 MPH would make my commute horribly longer (in time).

Average 50 mph? That’s a total dream during commute times! 28 mph is our reality over 27 miles one way, longer/ lower mph if accidents are working.

So for us, for many years now and miles one question was/is/remains do we want a good road car that can do well in commute or do we want a commuter car that can do OK on road trips?

andres3

dino001 said:

They may actually be actively trained NOT to do it. Pilots have to adhere to the procedures in their training, if it says do not switch something off until step 25 in he procedure, it may be fine at 30 thousand feet, but not so much 1000 feet, or less. But then there is another side - most accidents, especially in early times, were due to real pilot's poor decisions, sometimes something simple like pulling the stick up too much at wrong speed and altitude, etc. Computers are very good in eliminating those really blatant errors and we don't want to go back into "completely manual" flying. The stakes are too high. The trick becomes in integration of that interaction and weighing each input.

As I was said before, I can't wait until the autonomous driving technology will take away my steering wheel, as long it also takes them from those who are currently road menaces (I will gladly pay the "fun" price for the safety), but unfortunately I don't expect that to happen any time soon. The number of variables and prejudice is still too high.

One solution is to build a toll road lane everywhere, that only the users and adopters of the technology use, and pay for. It seems computers won't interact well with human drivers anyway, so having your own lane makes sense. I envision human drivers taking advantage of the software programming "weaknesses and vulnerabilities" so that human drivers get ahead in the line, and the computers are stuck waiting patiently and passively for a big opening. Exploiting AI is what video games are all about!

dino001

imidazol97 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

BTW, this would be a great time to buy Boeing stock.

Too late. It dropped yesterday, but was back up this morning. I haven't been home long enough to check this afternoon.

I did well on American Airlines when they had the thunderstorm crash in Dallas Ft Worth long, long ago.

Oh, it's down another 7%.

andres3

ab348 said:

dino001 said:

stickguy said:

Better safe them sorry territory?

And even if technically pilot error, did the plane cause a risky condition through faulty sensors or programming that the pilots weren’t able to handle?

That's the biggest question. Not all "pilot errors" are the same. Some are personal poor choices, some could be induced by lack/poor training, or unrecognized conditions. Remember crash of A320 over Long Island? It was technically "pilot error", but it was induced literally by wrong training by American Airlines. Overcompensation for wake vortex resulted in loss of the tail section.

Back in March of 2015 Air Canada flight 624 from Toronto (an A320) was coming into YHZ in a snowstorm. Visibility was poor in the snow. Pilots were apparently trained not to attempt to land if visibility was less than 1/2 mile. Controllers told them it had improved from 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile so they started their glide. They set the auto pilot to do this for them. Apparently that can take them down on the right trajectory to about 200 feet.

In this case there was apparently some wind that caused the plane to go lower than the expected trajectory. Pilots were apparently not trained to check the altitude in this procedure and the s/w did not alert them. They took over at lower than expected altitude and quickly found themselves way too low. Tried to throttle up but the tail hit the ground and they took out the localizer and some landing lights before bouncing up on to the runway and skidding to a stop. Air Canada and the govt officials called it a "hard landing" but it sure looked like a crash to me.

https://youtu.be/cT2s506_0kk

If no one was hurt or killed, all is fair in calling it a "hard landing." No harm, no foul, right? I suppose the passengers were delayed a bit in reaching their destinations, and in retrieving their luggage, so maybe a free ticket to make up for the "hard landing" is in order.

ruking1

andres3 said:

dino001 said:

They may actually be actively trained NOT to do it. Pilots have to adhere to the procedures in their training, if it says do not switch something off until step 25 in he procedure, it may be fine at 30 thousand feet, but not so much 1000 feet, or less. But then there is another side - most accidents, especially in early times, were due to real pilot's poor decisions, sometimes something simple like pulling the stick up too much at wrong speed and altitude, etc. Computers are very good in eliminating those really blatant errors and we don't want to go back into "completely manual" flying. The stakes are too high. The trick becomes in integration of that interaction and weighing each input.

As I was said before, I can't wait until the autonomous driving technology will take away my steering wheel, as long it also takes them from those who are currently road menaces (I will gladly pay the "fun" price for the safety), but unfortunately I don't expect that to happen any time soon. The number of variables and prejudice is still too high.

One solution is to build a toll road lane everywhere, that only the users and adopters of the technology use, and pay for. It seems computers won't interact well with human drivers anyway, so having your own lane makes sense. I envision human drivers taking advantage of the software programming "weaknesses and vulnerabilities" so that human drivers get ahead in the line, and the computers are stuck waiting patiently and passively for a big opening. Exploiting AI is what video games are all about!

The realities remain that it actually causes much MORE congestion. The reasons are TMI and if folks are willing to discuss, I can address them.

ruking1

andres3 said:

ab348 said:

dino001 said:

stickguy said:

Better safe them sorry territory?

And even if technically pilot error, did the plane cause a risky condition through faulty sensors or programming that the pilots weren’t able to handle?

That's the biggest question. Not all "pilot errors" are the same. Some are personal poor choices, some could be induced by lack/poor training, or unrecognized conditions. Remember crash of A320 over Long Island? It was technically "pilot error", but it was induced literally by wrong training by American Airlines. Overcompensation for wake vortex resulted in loss of the tail section.

Back in March of 2015 Air Canada flight 624 from Toronto (an A320) was coming into YHZ in a snowstorm. Visibility was poor in the snow. Pilots were apparently trained not to attempt to land if visibility was less than 1/2 mile. Controllers told them it had improved from 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile so they started their glide. They set the auto pilot to do this for them. Apparently that can take them down on the right trajectory to about 200 feet.

In this case there was apparently some wind that caused the plane to go lower than the expected trajectory. Pilots were apparently not trained to check the altitude in this procedure and the s/w did not alert them. They took over at lower than expected altitude and quickly found themselves way too low. Tried to throttle up but the tail hit the ground and they took out the localizer and some landing lights before bouncing up on to the runway and skidding to a stop. Air Canada and the govt officials called it a "hard landing" but it sure looked like a crash to me.

https://youtu.be/cT2s506_0kk

If no one was hurt or killed, all is fair in calling it a "hard landing." No harm, no foul, right? I suppose the passengers were delayed a bit in reaching their destinations, and in retrieving their luggage, so maybe a free ticket to make up for the "hard landing" is in order.

In keeping with the F1 racing commentary, The guy flying this plane was one of their aces, 😉 I would be clueless why they called him “CRASH’.

One is literally & total delusional to want/expect a ZERO accident/injury/fatality rate/#. Really the only way to get that (for one) is to NEVER fly. Indeed one politico has already talked about cutting flights to Hawaii, a state of the politico’s party ! ? I think folks can rest assured that may not fly. (pun intended)

As a result of this delusional thinking or hypothesis, these two 737 Max 8 crashes will be all about finger-pointing.

ab348

In the Halifax incident, nobody died and the injuries were mostly mild. The airport authority messed up in the immediate aftermath though and kept the passengers out on the tarmac for an hour or so before rousting up some buses. 

ruking1

dino001 said:

imidazol97 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

BTW, this would be a great time to buy Boeing stock.

Too late. It dropped yesterday, but was back up this morning. I haven't been home long enough to check this afternoon.

I did well on American Airlines when they had the thunderstorm crash in Dallas Ft Worth long, long ago.

Oh, it's down another 7%.

Right now $375. + change down from $439 and change. Try to get it at the lowest possible price. If not, one can wait for the $8.22 dividend.

driver100

ruking1 said:

Yes, sensors and software do not induce those kinds of actions. If it is hard or soft wire to do that like another poster mention the pilot should be able to take over. They could’ve gotten some FOD. It could’ve been a consequence of P POOR maintenance.

Also co-pilot only had 200 hours flying time logged!

driver100

houdini2 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

Strangely enough, I have done that a few times before. It is sort of like doubling your bet when you lose at Black Jack, etc. Sometimes it even works. I think this would be a good stock to go ahead and buy because whatever the problem is, if there is a problem, it could be an easy fix.

Houdini....you have developed a case of stuttering lately. Just twice this time but sometimes 3 times.

driver100

andres3 said:

ab348 said:

dino001 said:

stickguy said:

Better safe them sorry territory?

And even if technically pilot error, did the plane cause a risky condition through faulty sensors or programming that the pilots weren’t able to handle?

That's the biggest question. Not all "pilot errors" are the same. Some are personal poor choices, some could be induced by lack/poor training, or unrecognized conditions. Remember crash of A320 over Long Island? It was technically "pilot error", but it was induced literally by wrong training by American Airlines. Overcompensation for wake vortex resulted in loss of the tail section.

Back in March of 2015 Air Canada flight 624 from Toronto (an A320) was coming into YHZ in a snowstorm. Visibility was poor in the snow. Pilots were apparently trained not to attempt to land if visibility was less than 1/2 mile. Controllers told them it had improved from 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile so they started their glide. They set the auto pilot to do this for them. Apparently that can take them down on the right trajectory to about 200 feet.

In this case there was apparently some wind that caused the plane to go lower than the expected trajectory. Pilots were apparently not trained to check the altitude in this procedure and the s/w did not alert them. They took over at lower than expected altitude and quickly found themselves way too low. Tried to throttle up but the tail hit the ground and they took out the localizer and some landing lights before bouncing up on to the runway and skidding to a stop. Air Canada and the govt officials called it a "hard landing" but it sure looked like a crash to me.

https://youtu.be/cT2s506_0kk

If no one was hurt or killed, all is fair in calling it a "hard landing." No harm, no foul, right? I suppose the passengers were delayed a bit in reaching their destinations, and in retrieving their luggage, so maybe a free ticket to make up for the "hard landing" is in order.

Tearing out the whole bottom of an airplane is only called a hard landing?

driver100

About DIY putting tires on rims. Don't buy a car with RFTs......you need special equipment to install them and peanut butter probably won't work.

dino001

ruking1 said:

Right now $375. + change down from $439 and change. Try to get it at the lowest possible price. If not, one can wait for the $8.22 dividend.

You do know that on the day company goes ex-dividend (day after the record day), the stock simply adjusts for the dividend value, unless there is a new development affecting its price, don't you? In other words, market typically reevaluates the stock value based on the book value MINUS the dividend. So, "waiting for dividend" makes ZERO sense in terms for expectations of the company's stock. Dividend is not some kind of new money dropped by aliens to your doorstep. It's the same money you had in the company's stock price day before, now returned to you. The company is now worth less by that amount, at least on paper (books), it might become worth more for other reasons (new contract), or worth even less for other reasons (another product problem), but dividend did not create a new money out of thin air. It just reallocated it. Waiting for dividend is just like waiting for the tax refund - money that was already yours (at least on paper) is just given back to you.

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

Both are still here! But Boeing is different. They and Airbus pretty much own the global show. It's like, as if GM, Ford Toyota, Mercedes, BMW and Honda were one company.

Interesting and sounds very possible! But just when you think you can't be brought down....something happens and you get knocked off. Look at retail........everyone thought Walmart was unbeatable....and then along comes amazon. Everyone thought Blockbuster had the video market sewn up, then along comes Video on Demand. All the major TV Networks ABC, NBC etc had the TV watching market tied up and then along comes Netflix. Book publishers had a lock on publishing a book, and then along comes self publishing....nothing is for certain any more.

Mr_Shiftright

True, true, but you're talking about air travel, not plastic lawn ornaments from China. Next to oxygen and football, most Americans can't live without airplanes.

houdini2

driver100 said:

houdini2 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

Strangely enough, I have done that a few times before. It is sort of like doubling your bet when you lose at Black Jack, etc. Sometimes it even works. I think this would be a good stock to go ahead and buy because whatever the problem is, if there is a problem, it could be an easy fix.

Houdini....you have developed a case of stuttering lately. Just twice this time but sometimes 3 times.

driver100 said:

houdini2 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

Strangely enough, I have done that a few times before. It is sort of like doubling your bet when you lose at Black Jack, etc. Sometimes it even works. I think this would be a good stock to go ahead and buy because whatever the problem is, if there is a problem, it could be an easy fix.

Houdini....you have developed a case of stuttering lately. Just twice this time but sometimes 3 times.

driver100 said:

houdini2 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well maybe you could stagger your buying to different price points? Every 5 point drop, buy again?

There were some eye-witness reports on the Ethiopian crash. Apparently the plane was rattling and shaking violently and there was some smoke. I dunno, sounds kinda like a stall and a full-throttle attempt?

Strangely enough, I have done that a few times before. It is sort of like doubling your bet when you lose at Black Jack, etc. Sometimes it even works. I think this would be a good stock to go ahead and buy because whatever the problem is, if there is a problem, it could be an easy fix.

Houdini....you have developed a case of stuttering lately. Just twice this time but sometimes 3 times.

Yes, I don't think this site was developed with my chromebook in mind.

abacomike

Picked up the car this afternoon.  After an extended conversation with the shop foreman at the dealership’s service department, it appears that a software update did not “take” in the car’s electronic system.  So he said they had to attempt another update with the hope this would alleviate the problem.

The symptom that caused them to diagnose the software glitch was the fact that when attempting to open the sunroof, the rear of the glass roof would tilt up correctly, but would immediately reclose.  After they fed the software update into the computer module that initiates the various sunroof movements, the sunroof opened and closed correctly.  They attempted the open/close routine in excess of 30 times without any problems.

Before I left the dealership, I attempted to open and close the sunroof 3 times with no problem.  The reason for malfunctioning sunroof this time was different from the last malfunction (January) in that the first problem was caused by a faulty right track mechanism.  This time it was a computer software glitch.

Let’s hope it is properly repaired and the sunroof operation is trouble-free for the next 20 months.

imidazol97

@houdini2
At least you  get triple credit for words royalty checks. 

ab348

@abacomike , I wonder when the software was changed in the first place? It was working, then at some point was not working properly due to a software update. Do they get downloaded to the vehicle automatically I wonder?

ruking1

dino001 said:

ruking1 said:

Right now $375. + change down from $439 and change. Try to get it at the lowest possible price. If not, one can wait for the $8.22 dividend.

You do know that on the day company goes ex-dividend (day after the record day), the stock simply adjusts for the dividend value, unless there is a new development affecting its price, don't you? In other words, market typically reevaluates the stock value based on the book value MINUS the dividend. So, "waiting for dividend" makes ZERO sense in terms for expectations of the company's stock. Dividend is not some kind of new money dropped by aliens to your doorstep. It's the same money you had in the company's stock price day before, now returned to you. The company is now worth less by that amount, at least on paper (books), it might become worth more for other reasons (new contract), or worth even less for other reasons (another product problem), but dividend did not create a new money out of thin air. It just reallocated it. Waiting for dividend is just like waiting for the tax refund - money that was already yours (at least on paper) is just given back to you.

Oh yes! I’m glad you mentioned it on/for the board. Again the same thing, get it @ best prices adjusted for the div. BUT evidently you got skunked in the past?

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/former-faa-administrator-explains-why-200930584.html

jmonroe1

abacomike said:

Picked up the car this afternoon.  After an extended conversation with the shop foreman at the dealership’s service department, it appears that a software update did not “take” in the car’s electronic system.  So he said they had to attempt another update with the hope this would alleviate the problem.

The symptom that caused them to diagnose the software glitch was the fact that when attempting to open the sunroof, the rear of the glass roof would tilt up correctly, but would immediately reclose.  After they fed the software update into the computer module that initiates the various sunroof movements, the sunroof opened and closed correctly.  They attempted the open/close routine in excess of 30 times without any problems.

Before I left the dealership, I attempted to open and close the sunroof 3 times with no problem.  The reason for malfunctioning sunroof this time was different from the last malfunction (January) in that the first problem was caused by a faulty right track mechanism.  This time it was a computer software glitch.

Let’s hope it is properly repaired and the sunroof operation is trouble-free for the next 20 months.

Like I said in an earlier post, it wouldn't hurt to get some clear plastic and duct tape.

jmonroe