Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

stickguy

I had some guys look at our deck to quote on redoing it. Waiting on formal estimates, but based on the guy yesterday mental ballpark, it’s going to be way more $ to do what we want than I’m willing to spend at this point. Cheaper to pull most of it down, and replace with stamped concrete. Not that the wife would go for that. So getting it cleaned and stained instead. It’s old, I’m old, we match!

Likely getting the sliding door out to the deck replaced. That’s kinda crappy at this point, going on 30 years old.

stickguy

Also getting estimate on new front door package just for kicks. And I really need a new shed, but hate to drop $3k on one of those. Might try to paint it again, and throw some fresh plywood down since the floor is somewhat spongy.

nyccarguy

stickguy said:

Also getting estimate on new front door package just for kicks. And I really need a new shed, but hate to drop $3k on one of those. Might try to paint it again, and throw some fresh plywood down since the floor is somewhat spongy.

We had our front door replaced a few years ago by Home Depot at Home Services. I don't like to plug HD, but there's one guy (licensed contractor) that does the work. I picked out the door, he comes and measures, picks up the door at HD when it comes in and then installs. It came out perfect and cost around $1,200 for everything.

jmonroe1

stickguy said:

Audi definitely hit from behind. Besides, Andre doesn’t live in Canada!

stickguy said:

Audi definitely hit from behind. Besides, Andre doesn’t live in Canada!

Plus, I doubt that any car driven by @andres3 would ever be hit from behind.

jmonroe

driver100

stickguy said:

I think the road behind you is flooded. Better be careful driving.

I was going to say, either he lives next to The Lake or he is in a flood zone!

driver100

Plus, I doubt that any car driven by @andres3 would ever be hit from behind.
jmonroe

lol......he is a master of avoiding any possible collisions, by speeding by it or around it.

snakeweasel

ab348 said:

Maybe it would look better if it wasn't so cluttered.

We used to have a double retainer wall around the patio acting as a long planter around most of the patio. We took it down and are landscaping around the patio. On the left there are two columns with green planters with a space between them. That area is new and is where we are putting in the new grill. The fire pit in the back is also new. We are repurposing a lot of the retaing bricks but will have a lot left over. Right now we just have to plant a few more plants, put down mulch, finish the steps from the house to the patio, assemble the new grill and clean everything up. I was hoping to be done by Memorial day but the rain forecasted for the foreseeable future might delay that.

coldinohio

suydam said:

Isn’t somebody buying a new dishwasher or renovating a deck? Anybody?

NO; but need new front loader washing machine and e-dryer.....
my car wash microfiber towels got damaged when ... someone... washed them with jeans.. to add a car topic

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

stickguy said:

I think the road behind you is flooded. Better be careful driving.

I was going to say, either he lives next to The Lake or he is in a flood zone!

Next to a lake, the lake is surrounded on three sides by houses and the fourth side by a park. We are across from the park.

dino001

driver100 said:

Plus, I doubt that any car driven by @andres3 would ever be hit from behind.
jmonroe

lol......he is a master of avoiding any possible collisions, by speeding by it or around it.

He sees 20 miles ahead, has clairvoyant abilities when it comes to other drivers and most important, has a special enhancer in his car turning regular Lorentz factor time dilation factor of sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2) to special Andre's time dilation factor of ten at 150 mph. Since the factor drops its regular value at 70 mph, the only logical conclusion is the faster he drives, the safer we all are.

jmonroe1

andres3 said:

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

stickguy said:

I don't either. usually. Some people seem afraid for some reason. Definitely some being passive-aggressive road warriors. plenty are likely oblivious.

mostly bothers me when they are driving slower than traffic.if they are moving over the SL and passing traffic, not a big deal. mostly.

one time I can see it is when the right lane is too slow. One place this happens is on the lower part of the NYS thruway, where the traffic can be pretty heavy but there are only 2 lanes. It is also hilly and lots of trucks. So, at times, you can get blocked in the right lane by slow traffic, but there are no breaks in the fast lane for long stretches.

so, you often have a choice of driving too slow, or just staying out in the fast lane, even if cars are trying to move faster than you want to go.

Going faster than you want to go for a few seconds is also an option, don't forget. It's possible to gradually pass slower trucks without impeding a faster moving passing lane; passing 10 trucks in a row might not be advisable if your top safe speed is building traffic up behind you.

I guess I am just too old to understand the urges some people have to drive a car at 80-90 mph on an interstate or toll road. Even when I was in my mid 20's and 30's, I never had the urge to drive that fast - I had a wife and two young kids who depended on me emotionally and financially to be there for them!

Yes, when I was 18 and until I got married at 23, I would push the pedal to the metal in my '66 GTO TriPower 4-speed Hurst and my '67 Corvette Stingray 3-Deuces 4-speed Muncie to speeds approaching 100 mph. But I was dumb and stupid at that time and had few, if any responsibilities. I even rode a Honda Custom 1000cc motor cycle until my wife insisted that I grow up - she told me it was the bike or her! I chose her!

Notice the different mindsets in the life of this man - the first being tempted by speed and power and the second realizing significant responsibilities. I grew out of my 1st mindset and settled into my second mindset out of maturity and needs.

Now that I have arrived at the September of my life and have even tasted the end of my years several times, I refuse to tempt fate and my auto insurance company to speed at dangerously high speeds. I pride myself on possessing a "Safe Driver" Florida drivers license as does my insurance company.

Those who truly love driving at excessively high speeds well above legal speed limits should join a racing club or organization with access to a speedway to get the urge to go fast out of their systems without endangering drivers like me on the interstates who drive at or slightly above the posted speed limits. 🤓👍😛

That's the thing, people today are going 80-90 safely. Cars are designed for it now. Certainly, take almost any modern car and it is exponentially many orders of magnitude safer at 80-90 than your GTO was at even the 55 MPH speed limit.

Speed isn't a "temptation" or some kind of rush or thrill on daily commutes, it is simply utilitarian. If you have no need to go faster, ride a bike, or walk. Cars serve a utility that can get you from A to B faster than a bicycle, and safely too. It isn't A or B. You can have both with modern cars and trained properly licensed driving.
Going slower isn't safer. It makes some people "feel" safer. Makes you feel all warm and cozy, but this is a perfect example:

That 191 MPH maniac has a greater chance of killing you rear-ending you at your "speed limit or just above driving" than they do rear-ending the other speed maniac going 155 MPH, whereby the collision force is only 36 MPH.

TX has had 85 MPH speed limits for years now. Believe it or not, the asphalt and concrete is not yet stained red from all the blood soaked "danger" of driving 80-90 MPH entails.

Hey @Mike, do you still want to discuss this speeding thingy with @andres3?

jmonroe

andres3

jmonroe1 said:

stickguy said:

Audi definitely hit from behind. Besides, Andre doesn’t live in Canada!

stickguy said:

Audi definitely hit from behind. Besides, Andre doesn’t live in Canada!

Plus, I doubt that any car driven by @andres3 would ever be hit from behind.

jmonroe

Only when I'm in reverse gear

Actually, recalling all the times I've been hit in life:

1. I was parked and someone turned into my side backing themselves up too soon/early/sharply (I was speeding 0 MPH).
2. I was stopped in a line of traffic at a stop sign and got rear-ended (I was speeding 0 MPH).
3. I was stopped and hit from the side in a parking garage making a 3-point turn into a parking spot (I had braked in time to be speeding 0 MPH at time of collision).
4. I was going about 20-25 MPH and someone decided to start a left turn in front of me just at the wrong split second, colliding with my right front edge.
4. I had just engaged reverse gear after the first point in my 2 point turn to back up into a parking spot, I might have moved a foot at 0.25 MPH before the rear camera could even engage (less than 1/2 second after engaging reverse).

tjc78

suydam said:

Isn’t somebody buying a new dishwasher or renovating a deck? Anybody?

Lol. We are having a deck installed at the campground. 12x30, just pressure treated. I’m not springing for Trex down here. We are having it built to specs that we can turn it into a three season room at anytime.

oldfarmer50

nyccarguy said:

stickguy said:

Also getting estimate on new front door package just for kicks. And I really need a new shed, but hate to drop $3k on one of those. Might try to paint it again, and throw some fresh plywood down since the floor is somewhat spongy.

We had our front door replaced a few years ago by Home Depot at Home Services. I don't like to plug HD, but there's one guy (licensed contractor) that does the work. I picked out the door, he comes and measures, picks up the door at HD when it comes in and then installs. It came out perfect and cost around $1,200 for everything.

Wow, $1200 for a door? I’m thinking of replacing my front door when I have some storm damage repair done. Simple wood frame steel door is about 200 bucks at HD.

What was the installation cost? Did they do anything other than install the door and hardware?

stickguy

I’m sure mine will be more. I doubt the door itself can even be that cheap, with what the wife will want. Plus it’s a double (or close) opening with sidelights on both sides. I will stop at a HD or Lowe’s at some point just to get a baseline.

abacomike

jmonroe1 said:

andres3 said:

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

stickguy said:

I don't either. usually. Some people seem afraid for some reason. Definitely some being passive-aggressive road warriors. plenty are likely oblivious.

mostly bothers me when they are driving slower than traffic.if they are moving over the SL and passing traffic, not a big deal. mostly.

one time I can see it is when the right lane is too slow. One place this happens is on the lower part of the NYS thruway, where the traffic can be pretty heavy but there are only 2 lanes. It is also hilly and lots of trucks. So, at times, you can get blocked in the right lane by slow traffic, but there are no breaks in the fast lane for long stretches.

so, you often have a choice of driving too slow, or just staying out in the fast lane, even if cars are trying to move faster than you want to go.

Going faster than you want to go for a few seconds is also an option, don't forget. It's possible to gradually pass slower trucks without impeding a faster moving passing lane; passing 10 trucks in a row might not be advisable if your top safe speed is building traffic up behind you.

I guess I am just too old to understand the urges some people have to drive a car at 80-90 mph on an interstate or toll road. Even when I was in my mid 20's and 30's, I never had the urge to drive that fast - I had a wife and two young kids who depended on me emotionally and financially to be there for them!

Yes, when I was 18 and until I got married at 23, I would push the pedal to the metal in my '66 GTO TriPower 4-speed Hurst and my '67 Corvette Stingray 3-Deuces 4-speed Muncie to speeds approaching 100 mph. But I was dumb and stupid at that time and had few, if any responsibilities. I even rode a Honda Custom 1000cc motor cycle until my wife insisted that I grow up - she told me it was the bike or her! I chose her!

Notice the different mindsets in the life of this man - the first being tempted by speed and power and the second realizing significant responsibilities. I grew out of my 1st mindset and settled into my second mindset out of maturity and needs.

Now that I have arrived at the September of my life and have even tasted the end of my years several times, I refuse to tempt fate and my auto insurance company to speed at dangerously high speeds. I pride myself on possessing a "Safe Driver" Florida drivers license as does my insurance company.

Those who truly love driving at excessively high speeds well above legal speed limits should join a racing club or organization with access to a speedway to get the urge to go fast out of their systems without endangering drivers like me on the interstates who drive at or slightly above the posted speed limits. 🤓👍😛

That's the thing, people today are going 80-90 safely. Cars are designed for it now. Certainly, take almost any modern car and it is exponentially many orders of magnitude safer at 80-90 than your GTO was at even the 55 MPH speed limit.

Speed isn't a "temptation" or some kind of rush or thrill on daily commutes, it is simply utilitarian. If you have no need to go faster, ride a bike, or walk. Cars serve a utility that can get you from A to B faster than a bicycle, and safely too. It isn't A or B. You can have both with modern cars and trained properly licensed driving.
Going slower isn't safer. It makes some people "feel" safer. Makes you feel all warm and cozy, but this is a perfect example:

That 191 MPH maniac has a greater chance of killing you rear-ending you at your "speed limit or just above driving" than they do rear-ending the other speed maniac going 155 MPH, whereby the collision force is only 36 MPH.

TX has had 85 MPH speed limits for years now. Believe it or not, the asphalt and concrete is not yet stained red from all the blood soaked "danger" of driving 80-90 MPH entails.

Hey @Mike, do you still want to discuss this speeding thingy with @andres3?

jmonroe

I'M DONE! 😩😫🤨

stickguy

Something like this. But have to select 2 sidelights. Ups the price by $1,000 of course.

https://custom.homedepot.com/custom-doors/p/Steves-Sons-Legacy-Collection-Customizable-Fiberglass-Door/311525091/46165-Pre-Hung/45127-Single-Door-w-Two-Sidelites/39978-36-x-80/40069-12/45847-64-3-4-x-81-1-2-Inswing/46160-Primed-Ready-to-Paint/45839-Clear/45837-3-4-Lite/45854-6-Lite/45143-Black-Bronze/45147-Left-Hand-Inswing/35733-4-9-16

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

That 191 MPH maniac has a greater chance of killing you rear-ending you at your "speed limit or just above driving" than they do rear-ending the other speed maniac going 155 MPH, whereby the collision force is only 36 MPH.

don't be to sure about that, sure that 191 mph car hits the 155 mph car at a speed of 36 mph relative to the 155 mph car, but that car is still going 155 mph. A 3k to 4k pound car doing 155 mph has a lot of kinetic energy stored up in it that will have to be released in the accident. It's not the same as hitting a stationary car at 36 mph.

Oh, I'm sure about it, probably to 5 confidence intervals. I acknowledge getting rear ended while driving 155 MPH will be an unpleasant experience, but I assure you, it won't be as unpleasant as getting rear ended by a guy going 190 MPH if your only going 65 MPH. You better hope you have the much bigger heavier and/or better built car!

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

That 191 MPH maniac has a greater chance of killing you rear-ending you at your "speed limit or just above driving" than they do rear-ending the other speed maniac going 155 MPH, whereby the collision force is only 36 MPH.

don't be to sure about that, sure that 191 mph car hits the 155 mph car at a speed of 36 mph relative to the 155 mph car, but that car is still going 155 mph. A 3k to 4k pound car doing 155 mph has a lot of kinetic energy stored up in it that will have to be released in the accident. It's not the same as hitting a stationary car at 36 mph.

Oh, I'm sure about it, probably to 5 confidence intervals. I acknowledge getting rear ended while driving 155 MPH will be an unpleasant experience, but I assure you, it won't be as unpleasant as getting rear ended by a guy going 190 MPH if your only going 65 MPH. You better hope you have the much bigger heavier and/or better built car!

Really? In both cases people in both cars are equally dead.

andres3

dino001 said:

driver100 said:

Plus, I doubt that any car driven by @andres3 would ever be hit from behind.
jmonroe

lol......he is a master of avoiding any possible collisions, by speeding by it or around it.

He sees 20 miles ahead, has clairvoyant abilities when it comes to other drivers and most important, has a special enhancer in his car turning regular Lorentz factor time dilation factor of sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2) to special Andre's time dilation factor of ten at 150 mph. Since the factor drops its regular value at 70 mph, the only logical conclusion is the faster he drives, the safer we all are.

LOL! It's really not that complicated!

1) Chances of a Lexus being on the road when I'm on the road. If you reduce that chance, I'm safer.

2) If you think I'm dangerous, the less minutes I'm on the roadway, the higher chance you have that you won't be driving when and while I'm driving.

It's quite simple. Think of a baseball team. Their chances of winning are higher when they are facing the #5 starting pitcher rather than the Ace. Avoid the Ace pitcher. Don't play baseball while the Ace is playing.

I believe the guy that wrote you might have similar fatalities during COVID-19 as before (despite less traffic and less miles driven) because idiot negligent and incompetent drivers are always idiots and negligent and incompetent. Less traffic reduces their moving targets, but they will still find a way to crash (including stationary objects). I'd agree it has very little to do with traffic or congestion, as the real cause is the poor driving.

qbrozen

stickguy said:

I’m sure mine will be more. I doubt the door itself can even be that cheap, with what the wife will want. Plus it’s a double (or close) opening with sidelights on both sides. I will stop at a HD or Lowe’s at some point just to get a baseline.

Prepare to be shocked. We shopped fairly extensively last year and the absolute cheapest was still close to $4k. We have 2 sidelights and ... I already forgot the word, but the window above the door as well. I think what I'll wind up doing is ordering a fancy wrought iron type double door and installing myself. IIRC, that was $5k. Far better than spending $4k to get a fiberglass one installed by someone else.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

That 191 MPH maniac has a greater chance of killing you rear-ending you at your "speed limit or just above driving" than they do rear-ending the other speed maniac going 155 MPH, whereby the collision force is only 36 MPH.

don't be to sure about that, sure that 191 mph car hits the 155 mph car at a speed of 36 mph relative to the 155 mph car, but that car is still going 155 mph. A 3k to 4k pound car doing 155 mph has a lot of kinetic energy stored up in it that will have to be released in the accident. It's not the same as hitting a stationary car at 36 mph.

Oh, I'm sure about it, probably to 5 confidence intervals. I acknowledge getting rear ended while driving 155 MPH will be an unpleasant experience, but I assure you, it won't be as unpleasant as getting rear ended by a guy going 190 MPH if your only going 65 MPH. You better hope you have the much bigger heavier and/or better built car!

Really? In both cases people in both cars are equally dead.

Nonsense, after getting hit with a force of 36 MPH, you simply come to a stop in a straight line; I seriously doubt a 36 MPH collision will cause brake failure. I think it's a fair assumption at these high speeds everyone was going in a straight line, so there's no reason to assume any force would be exerted to your sides.

andres3

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

That 191 MPH maniac has a greater chance of killing you rear-ending you at your "speed limit or just above driving" than they do rear-ending the other speed maniac going 155 MPH, whereby the collision force is only 36 MPH.

Just pure junk science. Primary collision force is not the only factor influencing its outcome. Vehicles going 155 mph and 180 can just barely touch each other their motion will become too unstable to handle, most likely killing both drivers in the aftermath, just watch some races from the past. Cars are complex systems of multiple connected masses with links of different stiffnesses, as such have mutlple degrees of freedom, so when forward speed is changed, each of those DOFs will respond differently when an additional upsetting factor is introduced (such as "little bump" from behind).

We're talking bout straights here. At these speeds, for non race cars, it has to be straights. I've seen plenty of races where one faster car bumps one not so fast car in a straight line, and nothing happens other than a push.

What you seem to be straw manning, is a pit maneuver on a turn, or a bump from behind at the start of a turn, and yeah, that'll work. Introducing forces and upsetting the balance for a turn will be a problem.

Junk science = illogical straw man = pot call kettle black.

why don't you just add in the pedestrian on this 155 MPH roadway?

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

dino001 said:

driver100 said:

Plus, I doubt that any car driven by @andres3 would ever be hit from behind.
jmonroe

lol......he is a master of avoiding any possible collisions, by speeding by it or around it.

He sees 20 miles ahead, has clairvoyant abilities when it comes to other drivers and most important, has a special enhancer in his car turning regular Lorentz factor time dilation factor of sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2) to special Andre's time dilation factor of ten at 150 mph. Since the factor drops its regular value at 70 mph, the only logical conclusion is the faster he drives, the safer we all are.

LOL! It's really not that complicated!

1) Chances of a Lexus being on the road when I'm on the road. If you reduce that chance, I'm safer.

2) If you think I'm dangerous, the less minutes I'm on the roadway, the higher chance you have that you won't be driving when and while I'm driving.

It's quite simple. Think of a baseball team. Their chances of winning are higher when they are facing the #5 starting pitcher rather than the Ace. Avoid the Ace pitcher. Don't play baseball while the Ace is playing.

I believe the guy that wrote you might have similar fatalities during COVID-19 as before (despite less traffic and less miles driven) because idiot negligent and incompetent drivers are always idiots and negligent and incompetent. Less traffic reduces their moving targets, but they will still find a way to crash (including stationary objects). I'd agree it has very little to do with traffic or congestion, as the real cause is the poor driving.

That's like saying it's safer to jump out of an airplane without a parachute because you spend less time falling.

dino001

andres3 said:

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

That 191 MPH maniac has a greater chance of killing you rear-ending you at your "speed limit or just above driving" than they do rear-ending the other speed maniac going 155 MPH, whereby the collision force is only 36 MPH.

Just pure junk science. Primary collision force is not the only factor influencing its outcome. Vehicles going 155 mph and 180 can just barely touch each other their motion will become too unstable to handle, most likely killing both drivers in the aftermath, just watch some races from the past. Cars are complex systems of multiple connected masses with links of different stiffnesses, as such have mutlple degrees of freedom, so when forward speed is changed, each of those DOFs will respond differently when an additional upsetting factor is introduced (such as "little bump" from behind).

We're talking bout straights here. At these speeds, for non race cars, it has to be straights. I've seen plenty of races where one faster car bumps one not so fast car in a straight line, and nothing happens other than a push.

What you seem to be straw manning, is a pit maneuver on a turn, or a bump from behind at the start of a turn, and yeah, that'll work. Introducing forces and upsetting the balance for a turn will be a problem.

Junk science = illogical straw man = pot call kettle black.

why don't you just add in the pedestrian on this 155 MPH roadway?

In case of fast going vehicles, initial collision is just a start of an event that has multiple possible outcomes due to complex interaction of vehicles still moving at 150+ mph and losing stability of their motion. It can be straightest road in the world, it doesn't matter, slightest gyration of collision force will likely cause unstable response. Stop littering this place, I beg you.

fintail

Sounds like the traffic engineers in your area and here went to the same school.

There are a couple arterial roads here where the SL has odd 5 mph changes for no discernible reason. I suspect in 1977, the mayor's niece's dog was hit there or something, and reactionary logic reigned supreme. But at least it diverts some money to well-connected contractors I guess, keep that economy moving.

oldfarmer50 said:

In a small city near me a 4 lane interstate continues into town. They reduced the speed limit from 55 to 40 at the city line which was reasonable considering the intersections and stop lights.

Well, one night some drunken teenagers ran into traffic because they couldn’t wait for the signal with tragic results. An outcry arose to “do something” and the result was to tear up 3 miles of arrow straight interstate, repave it with twists and curves, reduce the speed limit to 30 and put in numerous speed bumps. Yes, speed bumps on an Interstate.

After spending $16 million on the project another bunch of teenagers got themselves run over down the road crossing the 55 mph section in the dark.

Somehow I don’t think the problem was speed.

dino001

snakeweasel said:

That's like saying it's safer to jump out of an airplane without a parachute because you spend less time falling.

Or going faster will save gas because you driving shorter time (note: sometimes faster does save gas, but only in within very specific parameters, certainly not because time savings).

driver100

andres3 said:

jmonroe1 said:

stickguy said:

Audi definitely hit from behind. Besides, Andre doesn’t live in Canada!

stickguy said:

Audi definitely hit from behind. Besides, Andre doesn’t live in Canada!

Plus, I doubt that any car driven by @andres3 would ever be hit from behind.

jmonroe

Only when I'm in reverse gear

Actually, recalling all the times I've been hit in life:

1. I was parked and someone turned into my side backing themselves up too soon/early/sharply (I was speeding 0 MPH).
2. I was stopped in a line of traffic at a stop sign and got rear-ended (I was speeding 0 MPH).
3. I was stopped and hit from the side in a parking garage making a 3-point turn into a parking spot (I had braked in time to be speeding 0 MPH at time of collision).
4. I was going about 20-25 MPH and someone decided to start a left turn in front of me just at the wrong split second, colliding with my right front edge.
4. I had just engaged reverse gear after the first point in my 2 point turn to back up into a parking spot, I might have moved a foot at 0.25 MPH before the rear camera could even engage (less than 1/2 second after engaging reverse).

So 4 out of 5 of your accidents happened when you weren't moving - or almost not moving. You could be right then, the faster you go the less chance you will be in an accident.

pensfan83

qbrozen said:

stickguy said:

I’m sure mine will be more. I doubt the door itself can even be that cheap, with what the wife will want. Plus it’s a double (or close) opening with sidelights on both sides. I will stop at a HD or Lowe’s at some point just to get a baseline.

Prepare to be shocked. We shopped fairly extensively last year and the absolute cheapest was still close to $4k. We have 2 sidelights and ... I already forgot the word, but the window above the door as well. I think what I'll wind up doing is ordering a fancy wrought iron type double door and installing myself. IIRC, that was $5k. Far better than spending $4k to get a fiberglass one installed by someone else.

Transom

We have the same style front door minus the transom and received similar estimates last year but didn't go forward.

driver100

dino001 said:

snakeweasel said:

That's like saying it's safer to jump out of an airplane without a parachute because you spend less time falling.

Or going faster will save gas because you driving shorter time (note: sometimes faster does save gas, but only in within very specific parameters, certainly not because time savings).

or, going faster is safer because it cuts down your exposure time.

imidazol97

abacomike said:

I'M DONE! 😩😫🤨

I still want to know what is the top speed on Mike's 450 if he hits the sawgrass parkway and just floors it near dawn some day.

fintail

If someone in front of you isn't moving, then discipline doesn't apply to you. I sometimes think some local LLCs do it out of oblivion, as traffic is often congested to the point where the reality is stop and go no matter the lane, and when presented with an open road, they don't know what to do.

However, some are just stubborn. I have an uncle who is pretty much a walking generational stereotype these days who still doesn't like the idea of a passing lane - which is odd, as when I've been in a car with him driving, he exhibits lane discipline. However, discussing it is another matter.

imidazol97 said:

This was traffic heading back to Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and parts north at the end of an Easter break vacation period. Me and the 30 other cars ahead of me that I could see in the left lane of two lanes. This is a hilly area of Kentucky. The right lane has campers, semis, slower vehicles. I don't recall the speed limit at the time, but let's say 52 was the average speed in the right lane. Speeds in the right lane go up and do down depending on the vehicles there and the upgrade percent.

I was in the left lane where speeds were from 75 to 60 depending on the terrain. No one was driving as if it were open road. If someone was behind another car in the left lane, they could pass in the right lane. But most people just followed the cars in front at a safe distance in the left lane.

This is not a case of the LLC affecting the LLD's ability to DLH. LOL

suydam

oldfarmer50 said:

nyccarguy said:

stickguy said:

Also getting estimate on new front door package just for kicks. And I really need a new shed, but hate to drop $3k on one of those. Might try to paint it again, and throw some fresh plywood down since the floor is somewhat spongy.

We had our front door replaced a few years ago by Home Depot at Home Services. I don't like to plug HD, but there's one guy (licensed contractor) that does the work. I picked out the door, he comes and measures, picks up the door at HD when it comes in and then installs. It came out perfect and cost around $1,200 for everything.

Wow, $1200 for a door? I’m thinking of replacing my front door when I have some storm damage repair done. Simple wood frame steel door is about 200 bucks at HD.

What was the installation cost? Did they do anything other than install the door and hardware?

I think that was about the cost of our front door. If you get an energy-efficient one they are heavier. Ours is beautiful. We got it at the time that such expenses were tax deductible too.
On another note, we are hoping to re-do the kitchen counters and cabinets later this fall. Depending on circumstances of course.
I’m also very happy we made the decision to buy out the Volt lease before all this started. I really do not want to be car-shopping now. Love reading about others doing so, however!

stickguy

For these kinds of projects, I usually just figure out what I think it should cost, double it, and will be pretty close to the estimates! Also why I am not spdnding $10,000 to redo the deck or $5,000 for a new front door. Deck looks ok stained, and can just paint the front door again.

I really should be moving instead. Still trying to wear down the wife! One result of the pandemic rules, her company decided that WFH is actually ok, so if we wanted to move away from here, we can.

fintail

Governed to 130, I believe. But no problem to remove that governor

imidazol97 said:

I still want to know what is the top speed on Mike's 450 if he hits the sawgrass parkway and just floors it near dawn some day.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

That 191 MPH maniac has a greater chance of killing you rear-ending you at your "speed limit or just above driving" than they do rear-ending the other speed maniac going 155 MPH, whereby the collision force is only 36 MPH.

don't be to sure about that, sure that 191 mph car hits the 155 mph car at a speed of 36 mph relative to the 155 mph car, but that car is still going 155 mph. A 3k to 4k pound car doing 155 mph has a lot of kinetic energy stored up in it that will have to be released in the accident. It's not the same as hitting a stationary car at 36 mph.

Oh, I'm sure about it, probably to 5 confidence intervals. I acknowledge getting rear ended while driving 155 MPH will be an unpleasant experience, but I assure you, it won't be as unpleasant as getting rear ended by a guy going 190 MPH if your only going 65 MPH. You better hope you have the much bigger heavier and/or better built car!

Really? In both cases people in both cars are equally dead.

Nonsense, after getting hit with a force of 36 MPH, you simply come to a stop in a straight line; I seriously doubt a 36 MPH collision will cause brake failure. I think it's a fair assumption at these high speeds everyone was going in a straight line, so there's no reason to assume any force would be exerted to your sides.

There is really nothing simple driving north of 150. At 155 aerodynamics are in play and you dont have the grip you would have at half that speed and you are far less stable. At those speeds anything that disturbs the car, ever so slight, could make it a very bad day for you. Getting hit from behind at that speed your coming to a stop alright but if you do it by braking it's your lucky day. In racing cars going that fast regularly crash being hit at speed differences of only a few miles per hour. The physics dont agree with you.

ab348

oldfarmer50 said:

Wow, $1200 for a door? I’m thinking of replacing my front door when I have some storm damage repair done. Simple wood frame steel door is about 200 bucks at HD.

What was the installation cost? Did they do anything other than install the door and hardware?

Crikey, man, you must be made of money. Something like this accomplishes the same thing and for far less!

kyfdx

fintail said:

Governed to 130, I believe. But no problem to remove that governor

imidazol97 said:

I still want to know what is the top speed on Mike's 450 if he hits the sawgrass parkway and just floors it near dawn some day.

I think you are correct. A lot of the OEM tires for that model are H-rated.

driver100

ab348 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

Wow, $1200 for a door? I’m thinking of replacing my front door when I have some storm damage repair done. Simple wood frame steel door is about 200 bucks at HD.

What was the installation cost? Did they do anything other than install the door and hardware?

Crikey, man, you must be made of money. Something like this accomplishes the same thing and for far less!

Would look much better with a little tidying up....like get rid of the blue electric cord and shoes in the doorway, that will make it much better. Oh, maybe remove that big rock in front of the welcome mat.

jmonroe1

roadburner said:

Methinks iluv left because we all wouldn't admit that an Altima is the pinnacle of automotive excellence.

Just the black ones. 😎

jmonroe

andres3

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

jmonroe1 said:

stickguy said:

Audi definitely hit from behind. Besides, Andre doesn’t live in Canada!

stickguy said:

Audi definitely hit from behind. Besides, Andre doesn’t live in Canada!

Plus, I doubt that any car driven by @andres3 would ever be hit from behind.

jmonroe

Only when I'm in reverse gear

Actually, recalling all the times I've been hit in life:

1. I was parked and someone turned into my side backing themselves up too soon/early/sharply (I was speeding 0 MPH).
2. I was stopped in a line of traffic at a stop sign and got rear-ended (I was speeding 0 MPH).
3. I was stopped and hit from the side in a parking garage making a 3-point turn into a parking spot (I had braked in time to be speeding 0 MPH at time of collision).
4. I was going about 20-25 MPH and someone decided to start a left turn in front of me just at the wrong split second, colliding with my right front edge.
4. I had just engaged reverse gear after the first point in my 2 point turn to back up into a parking spot, I might have moved a foot at 0.25 MPH before the rear camera could even engage (less than 1/2 second after engaging reverse).

So 4 out of 5 of your accidents happened when you weren't moving - or almost not moving. You could be right then, the faster you go the less chance you will be in an accident.

EXACTLY. It is harder to hit a 95 MPH fastball than a 55 mph fastball, going back to my baseball analogies, and there's a good reason for that, and the same applies to bad drivers targeting you and your vehicle, including that Garbage truck that hit you when you were a dead and sitting duck.

andres3

driver100 said:

dino001 said:

snakeweasel said:

That's like saying it's safer to jump out of an airplane without a parachute because you spend less time falling.

Or going faster will save gas because you driving shorter time (note: sometimes faster does save gas, but only in within very specific parameters, certainly not because time savings).

or, going faster is safer because it cuts down your exposure time.

Idling for 100 minutes uses more gas than idling for 10 minutes, so yes, all other things being equal, 10 minutes of exposure to bad USA drivers is safer than 100 minutes of exposure.

I don't understand the jump out of a plane correlation at all; that's just nonsensical. No correlation to what were talking about. No matter what you do you have to eventually land if you are falling. You don't have to have a collision. Collisions are not inevitable, they are preventable. I think the problem is the "speed kills" crowd considers negligent collisions to be "accidents" that are not preventable and/or avoidable. Couldn't be farther from the truth!

andres3

driver100 said:

dino001 said:

snakeweasel said:

That's like saying it's safer to jump out of an airplane without a parachute because you spend less time falling.

Or going faster will save gas because you driving shorter time (note: sometimes faster does save gas, but only in within very specific parameters, certainly not because time savings).

or, going faster is safer because it cuts down your exposure time.

Idling for 100 minutes uses more gas than idling for 10 minutes, so yes, all other things being equal, 10 minutes of exposure to bad USA drivers is safer than 100 minutes of exposure.

I don't understand the jump out of a plane correlation at all; that's just nonsensical. No correlation to what were talking about. No matter what you do you have to eventually land if you are falling. You don't have to have a collision. Collisions are not inevitable, they are preventable. I think the problem is the "speed kills" crowd considers negligent collisions to be "accidents" that are not preventable and/or avoidable. Couldn't be farther from the truth!

abacomike

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

jmonroe1 said:

stickguy said:

Audi definitely hit from behind. Besides, Andre doesn’t live in Canada!

stickguy said:

Audi definitely hit from behind. Besides, Andre doesn’t live in Canada!

Plus, I doubt that any car driven by @andres3 would ever be hit from behind.

jmonroe

Only when I'm in reverse gear

Actually, recalling all the times I've been hit in life:

1. I was parked and someone turned into my side backing themselves up too soon/early/sharply (I was speeding 0 MPH).
2. I was stopped in a line of traffic at a stop sign and got rear-ended (I was speeding 0 MPH).
3. I was stopped and hit from the side in a parking garage making a 3-point turn into a parking spot (I had braked in time to be speeding 0 MPH at time of collision).
4. I was going about 20-25 MPH and someone decided to start a left turn in front of me just at the wrong split second, colliding with my right front edge.
4. I had just engaged reverse gear after the first point in my 2 point turn to back up into a parking spot, I might have moved a foot at 0.25 MPH before the rear camera could even engage (less than 1/2 second after engaging reverse).

So 4 out of 5 of your accidents happened when you weren't moving - or almost not moving. You could be right then, the faster you go the less chance you will be in an accident.

EXACTLY. It is harder to hit a 95 MPH fastball than a 55 mph fastball, going back to my baseball analogies, and there's a good reason for that, and the same applies to bad drivers targeting you and your vehicle, including that Garbage truck that hit you when you were a dead and sitting duck.

Actually for me, I couldn't hit a 95 mph fastball, a 55 mph fastball or even a 2 mph fastball - because I can't see any of them coming in toward me or going by me. A 2 mph fast ball looks the same to me as a 95 mph fastball.🤪😜😛👍🤙🤓

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

That 191 MPH maniac has a greater chance of killing you rear-ending you at your "speed limit or just above driving" than they do rear-ending the other speed maniac going 155 MPH, whereby the collision force is only 36 MPH.

don't be to sure about that, sure that 191 mph car hits the 155 mph car at a speed of 36 mph relative to the 155 mph car, but that car is still going 155 mph. A 3k to 4k pound car doing 155 mph has a lot of kinetic energy stored up in it that will have to be released in the accident. It's not the same as hitting a stationary car at 36 mph.

Oh, I'm sure about it, probably to 5 confidence intervals. I acknowledge getting rear ended while driving 155 MPH will be an unpleasant experience, but I assure you, it won't be as unpleasant as getting rear ended by a guy going 190 MPH if your only going 65 MPH. You better hope you have the much bigger heavier and/or better built car!

Really? In both cases people in both cars are equally dead.

Nonsense, after getting hit with a force of 36 MPH, you simply come to a stop in a straight line; I seriously doubt a 36 MPH collision will cause brake failure. I think it's a fair assumption at these high speeds everyone was going in a straight line, so there's no reason to assume any force would be exerted to your sides.

There is really nothing simple driving north of 150. At 155 aerodynamics are in play and you dont have the grip you would have at half that speed and you are far less stable. At those speeds anything that disturbs the car, ever so slight, could make it a very bad day for you. Getting hit from behind at that speed your coming to a stop alright but if you do it by braking it's your lucky day. In racing cars going that fast regularly crash being hit at speed differences of only a few miles per hour. The physics dont agree with you.

You forgot Newton's laws in your Physics. That which is going in a straight line will tend to continue in a straight line. So you agree with me if the speed differences are a "few miles per hour" but disagree that 36 MPH is not a minor collision, OK. We can agree to disagree. These are crumple zones colliding at 36, not brick walls. So where's your line of a "few MPH?" 10 MPH delta? Also, the types of cars capable of going 155 or 190 MPH especially aren't the type that instantly lose control when they get tapped on the butt. Of course, someone suggested a Soul could go 150; I don't buy it.

I can personally attest that my vehicle is very stable at 140 MPH, mechanical spoiler up at that speed with down-force and all. I honestly believe it'll take a side impact vector to make me lose control, but again, I have the proper tires for 140 safe speeds too.

andres3

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

That 191 MPH maniac has a greater chance of killing you rear-ending you at your "speed limit or just above driving" than they do rear-ending the other speed maniac going 155 MPH, whereby the collision force is only 36 MPH.

Just pure junk science. Primary collision force is not the only factor influencing its outcome. Vehicles going 155 mph and 180 can just barely touch each other their motion will become too unstable to handle, most likely killing both drivers in the aftermath, just watch some races from the past. Cars are complex systems of multiple connected masses with links of different stiffnesses, as such have mutlple degrees of freedom, so when forward speed is changed, each of those DOFs will respond differently when an additional upsetting factor is introduced (such as "little bump" from behind).

We're talking bout straights here. At these speeds, for non race cars, it has to be straights. I've seen plenty of races where one faster car bumps one not so fast car in a straight line, and nothing happens other than a push.

What you seem to be straw manning, is a pit maneuver on a turn, or a bump from behind at the start of a turn, and yeah, that'll work. Introducing forces and upsetting the balance for a turn will be a problem.

Junk science = illogical straw man = pot call kettle black.

why don't you just add in the pedestrian on this 155 MPH roadway?

In case of fast going vehicles, initial collision is just a start of an event that has multiple possible outcomes due to complex interaction of vehicles still moving at 150+ mph and losing stability of their motion. It can be straightest road in the world, it doesn't matter, slightest gyration of collision force will likely could potentially cause unstable response.

Fixed it for you.

https://youtu.be/yG96u_qm9Ls

Here's an example of a rather uneventful "gyration of force" at over 200 MPH (claimed).

tjc78

Horse = D E A D

Carry-on

pensfan83

Let's move on to air fryers. We ordered a NuWave Brio and it was delivered Monday. I'm making fish tacos this evening and giving it a whirl. From what friends tell us we have been missing out so if anyone has recipes send links!

andres3

what should I have for lunch today?

stickguy

pensfan83 said:

Let's move on to air fryers. We ordered a NuWave Brio and it was delivered Monday. I'm making fish tacos this evening and giving it a whirl. From what friends tell us we have been missing out so if anyone has recipes send links!

We have a cuisenart Toaster oven and sir fryer combo. Works well. Just be careful, stuff can cook quick!