Todays Daily Telegraph
Discussion
This is worth a read.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/12/nmotors12.xml
Any comments ?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/12/nmotors12.xml
Any comments ?
Bad for the new car market, good for the used.
Manufacturers will need to come up with ways of getting revenue from their older cars as the core business of selling and servicing new cars could dry up.
I can see an increased market in older cars being modernised with with newer engines, interior, suspension, lights etc etc.
Manufacturers will need to come up with ways of getting revenue from their older cars as the core business of selling and servicing new cars could dry up.
I can see an increased market in older cars being modernised with with newer engines, interior, suspension, lights etc etc.
the torygraph said:
The best example of what technology can do when it has to is 1939. The Royal Air Force went into battle with biplanes but within five years they had jet engines.
's funny, I always thought bi-planes would be more economical that jet engines, but hey: who am I to stand in the way of thet type of progress 
Globulator said:
the torygraph said:
The best example of what technology can do when it has to is 1939. The Royal Air Force went into battle with biplanes but within five years they had jet engines.
's funny, I always thought bi-planes would be more economical that jet engines, but hey: who am I to stand in the way of thet type of progress 
dont jet engines produce more CO2 than traditional internal combustion ones?Fidgits said:
Globulator said:
the torygraph said:
The best example of what technology can do when it has to is 1939. The Royal Air Force went into battle with biplanes but within five years they had jet engines.
's funny, I always thought bi-planes would be more economical that jet engines, but hey: who am I to stand in the way of thet type of progress dont jet engines produce more CO2 than traditional internal combustion ones?Yes but they produce no CO as the combustion is much more efficient.
You can't really compare jets and piston engines. Piston engines are efficient at slow speeds, jets are efficient at high speeds and high altitudes.
An airliner full of passengers is very economical and clean, if you look at the carbon emission per passenger.
Raven Flyer said:
You can't really compare jets and piston engines. Piston engines are efficient at slow speeds, jets are efficient at high speeds and high altitudes.
An airliner full of passengers is very economical and clean, if you look at the carbon emission per passenger.
So just jet powered buses and coaches then. An airliner full of passengers is very economical and clean, if you look at the carbon emission per passenger.
They might even need bus lanes for them.
Globulator said:
Raven Flyer said:
You can't really compare jets and piston engines. Piston engines are efficient at slow speeds, jets are efficient at high speeds and high altitudes.
An airliner full of passengers is very economical and clean, if you look at the carbon emission per passenger.
So just jet powered buses and coaches then. An airliner full of passengers is very economical and clean, if you look at the carbon emission per passenger.
They might even need bus lanes for them.
they already do - they're called 'corridors'
What utter nonsense. Any amount of fiddling around the edges these eco-nutters do will change nothing: mankind will burn EXACTLY the same amount of fossil fuels. If not in GB, in China, in the USA, in India. And that amount will be all of it.
Why do these imbeciles think for a second that changing anything can effect this fact? Never mind changing such an insignificant global pursuit as car usage profile in Europe.
There a a hundred other reasons than CO2 behind these type of crackpot proposals.
SM
Why do these imbeciles think for a second that changing anything can effect this fact? Never mind changing such an insignificant global pursuit as car usage profile in Europe.
There a a hundred other reasons than CO2 behind these type of crackpot proposals.
SM
Globulator said:
the torygraph said:
The best example of what technology can do when it has to is 1939. The Royal Air Force went into battle with biplanes but within five years they had jet engines.
's funny, I always thought bi-planes would be more economical that jet engines, but hey: who am I to stand in the way of thet type of progress Yes but isn't this technical point plain wrong? ISTR that it was the RN that had biplanes used to drop torpedoes. Maybe all those battle of britian docs and films where wrong but I don't remember seeing any biplanes or jet planes. ISTR that the germans where first to put jet planes into the war, and even then only right at the end. ISTR also that the RAF technical improvement was in the power output of the RR engine used in the allied fighter planes. The really key technical acheivements were in radar, sonar and code cracking.
NJH said:
Yes but isn't this technical point plain wrong? ISTR that it was the RN that had biplanes used to drop torpedoes. Maybe all those battle of britian docs and films where wrong but I don't remember seeing any biplanes or jet planes. ISTR that the germans where first to put jet planes into the war, and even then only right at the end. ISTR also that the RAF technical improvement was in the power output of the RR engine used in the allied fighter planes. The really key technical acheivements were in radar, sonar and code cracking.
Fairey Swordfish - start of war
Gloster Meteor - end of war
I think
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff