Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]
Discussion
Frimley111R said:
StevieBee said:
Chestrockwell said:
Mercedes are making the project one
Bugatti made the Chiron
2 examples of huge manufacturers making something because they can while not necessarily turning over a profit on those specific models.
The Concorde was designed in the 60’s right? 50 years later, why is there nothing like it, There definitely isn’t a shortage of wealth out there so I am certain there is a market for it.
I know the answer, it’s just not profitable enough but what happened to creating something incredible because you can? I wonder what Boeing or Airbus would be able to make with today’s technology !
Concorde was never intended as a loss making entity and IIRC, did eventually begin to turn a profit towards the end of its run. However, your point is valid as when the idea for it came about, it was driven by many things other than financial projections and very much on a 'build it and they will fly in it' basis. Bugatti made the Chiron
2 examples of huge manufacturers making something because they can while not necessarily turning over a profit on those specific models.
The Concorde was designed in the 60’s right? 50 years later, why is there nothing like it, There definitely isn’t a shortage of wealth out there so I am certain there is a market for it.
I know the answer, it’s just not profitable enough but what happened to creating something incredible because you can? I wonder what Boeing or Airbus would be able to make with today’s technology !
What's more astonishing is that is was born from the ranks of Labour. Can you imagine Corbyn signing off on such a thing today? Think of the babies!!
Project One and the Chrion are designed as engineering showcases; demonstrating the capabilities of the companies so that the good feeling this generates results in the shifting of more Polos and A classes.
I just think with the way things are moving and the speed, airplanes haven’t been getting any better, they just have more seats and are more fuel efficient. You also only get to experience the top planes with a decent airline, I flew with easy jet to Ibiza and that was a horrendous experience, tiny cramped cabin with 2.99 warm lidl type cans of pepsi and a shortage of sandwiches. Awful, everything gets better apart from aviation!
A pal was telling me about his Dad's trip on an A380- how he had a pod rather than a seat, and a full size bar.
It was all very impressive, but surely that comes at the expense of not cramming a ton of people in like sardines?
We could make an A320 a less miserable experience simply by deleting a third of the seats, but we wouldn't be prepared to pay the extra third on the ticket price.
Re: Concorde- it was designed pre-internet. A trans-atlantic business meeting that could be held the same day probably had more value in the days when even fax machines were new inventions and when flying itself was still a luxury.
What would the business case for one be now?
I'm more surprised that there hasn't been a supersonic business jet yet, which would be much more of a toy for your oligarch and his pals.
It was all very impressive, but surely that comes at the expense of not cramming a ton of people in like sardines?
We could make an A320 a less miserable experience simply by deleting a third of the seats, but we wouldn't be prepared to pay the extra third on the ticket price.
Re: Concorde- it was designed pre-internet. A trans-atlantic business meeting that could be held the same day probably had more value in the days when even fax machines were new inventions and when flying itself was still a luxury.
What would the business case for one be now?
I'm more surprised that there hasn't been a supersonic business jet yet, which would be much more of a toy for your oligarch and his pals.
Edited by glazbagun on Friday 19th January 20:09
glazbagun said:
We could make an A320 a less miserable experience simply by deleting a third of the seats, but we wouldn't be prepared to pay the extra third on the ticket price.
British Airways do something similar with the A318 on the London City to JFK run. I think it's more like deleting 2/3 of the seats though.glazbagun said:
I'm more surprised that there hasn't been a supersonic business jet yet, which would be much more of a toy for your oligarch and his pals.
There have been some designs mooted but the usual cost, noise and fuel consumption issues keep coming back. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_busines...Edited by glazbagun on Friday 19th January 20:09
glazbagun said:
A pal was telling me about his Dad's trip on an A380- how he had a pod rather than a seat, and a full size bar.
It was all very impressive, but surely that comes at the expense of not cramming a ton of people in like sardines?
We could make an A320 a less miserable experience simply by deleting a third of the seats, but we wouldn't be prepared to pay the extra third on the ticket price.
Re: Concorde- it was designed pre-internet. A trans-atlantic business meeting that could be held the same day probably had more value in the days when even fax machines were new inventions and when flying itself was still a luxury.
What would the business case for one be now?
I'm more surprised that there hasn't been a supersonic business jet yet, which would be much more of a toy for your oligarch and his pals.
I guess you are right it would just be a gimmick in today’s age, rich people would use it once to say they did and probably save 10 grand next time for a few extra hours.It was all very impressive, but surely that comes at the expense of not cramming a ton of people in like sardines?
We could make an A320 a less miserable experience simply by deleting a third of the seats, but we wouldn't be prepared to pay the extra third on the ticket price.
Re: Concorde- it was designed pre-internet. A trans-atlantic business meeting that could be held the same day probably had more value in the days when even fax machines were new inventions and when flying itself was still a luxury.
What would the business case for one be now?
I'm more surprised that there hasn't been a supersonic business jet yet, which would be much more of a toy for your oligarch and his pals.
Edited by glazbagun on Friday 19th January 20:09
I guess there isn’t that urgency to fly across the world any more as the president of the United States can tweet insults and threats to other countries from his mobile phone ha!
However as something for super rich people, a private supersonic jet would be interesting, I’m not asking for such a thing to be built so I can experience it, no, I just want to see what can be done with the knowledge & technology of today.
227bhp said:
Rich_W said:
StevieBee said:
How does my FitBit know I've gone to bed?
How does it differentiate between me slobbed out in front of the telly and laying in my bed?
Would assume it's because your pulse is lower when asleep. How does it differentiate between me slobbed out in front of the telly and laying in my bed?
Chestrockwell said:
Mercedes are making the project one
Bugatti made the Chiron
2 examples of huge manufacturers making something because they can while not necessarily turning over a profit on those specific models.
The Concorde was designed in the 60’s right? 50 years later, why is there nothing like it, There definitely isn’t a shortage of wealth out there so I am certain there is a market for it.
I know the answer, it’s just not profitable enough but what happened to creating something incredible because you can? I wonder what Boeing or Airbus would be able to make with today’s technology !
There's no demand. Even before the accident Concorde ticket sales were dwindling. There's no requirement for a business types to fly to NYC and do a deal and fly home. Skype, video conferencing killed it. And then the first test flight post accident were on 9/11 (it landed before the attack) so people were scared of flying for a while which didn't help.Bugatti made the Chiron
2 examples of huge manufacturers making something because they can while not necessarily turning over a profit on those specific models.
The Concorde was designed in the 60’s right? 50 years later, why is there nothing like it, There definitely isn’t a shortage of wealth out there so I am certain there is a market for it.
I know the answer, it’s just not profitable enough but what happened to creating something incredible because you can? I wonder what Boeing or Airbus would be able to make with today’s technology !
People who fly, want luxury and space, A380 first class, over a largely irrelevant 2 hour time saving
Welshbeef said:
Why can you ahem “last” so much longer first thing in the morning than at any other time of the day - is there something very special about morning glory which allows this difference?
Your Testosterone levels build up over night. 
Can't remember why though. Irony is that Women are physically at their most "receptive" in the evening. Nature really does like messing with us! EDIT TO ADD QUESTION
How do Argos keep their stock control so good. It's pretty rare not to have something in stock. Yet you don't see fleets of their lorries delivering constantly through the day on a "just in time" logistics process.
Edited by Rich_W on Friday 19th January 22:06
Strudul said:
227bhp said:
Strudul said:
Welshbeef said:
Two ways to wipe your arse after a s
t
Front to back hand round the side of your ass cheek or back to front hand between the legs.
Which is the most popular for men and is it different for women.
Why would anyone go back to front???t Front to back hand round the side of your ass cheek or back to front hand between the legs.
Which is the most popular for men and is it different for women.
Just gonna end up with crap smeared on your balls... or lips.
A wipe is ~4" if you use a decent amount of the sheet, so as you're using the last inch, the first inch, heavily soiled, will make contact.
If you wanted to go back to front you'd either have to use very short wipes or wipe almost vertically, neither of which is very efficient.
(I'm assuming the folding technique, might be different if you're a scruncher.)
Females, especially younger girls, sometime wipe back to front because they do it from reaching between their legs...... as there no obstruction.
I have seen written warnings/instructions warning females not to do this, as it causes dangerous infections....
No idea where or why I saw this, but I do remember seeing it once.
TTmonkey said:
In all seriousness.....
Females, especially younger girls, sometime wipe back to front because they do it from reaching between their legs...... as there no obstruction.
I have seen written warnings/instructions warning females not to do this, as it causes dangerous infections....
No idea where or why I saw this, but I do remember seeing it once.
Was it that time you were arrested in the ladies loos at Heston Services?Females, especially younger girls, sometime wipe back to front because they do it from reaching between their legs...... as there no obstruction.
I have seen written warnings/instructions warning females not to do this, as it causes dangerous infections....
No idea where or why I saw this, but I do remember seeing it once.
Last weekend we drove back from a short break in Cornwall, on the way back we passed a number of large wind turbines.
About half of them were static, switched off I suppose, even though there was a decent wind.
Why would you do that, why not simply leave them running pretty much all of the time and just store the energy?
S
About half of them were static, switched off I suppose, even though there was a decent wind.
Why would you do that, why not simply leave them running pretty much all of the time and just store the energy?
S
skeeterm5 said:
Last weekend we drove back from a short break in Cornwall, on the way back we passed a number of large wind turbines.
About half of them were static, switched off I suppose, even though there was a decent wind.
Why would you do that, why not simply leave them running pretty much all of the time and just store the energy?
S
Firstly, where are you going to store the energy? About half of them were static, switched off I suppose, even though there was a decent wind.
Why would you do that, why not simply leave them running pretty much all of the time and just store the energy?
S
You would need utterly vast banks of batteries or capacitors to store enough to be useful. Lots of cost and maintenance.
It’s generally pretty windy where the turbines are placed, so they can be used when required.
It would also reduce wear on the turbines, they’ll have a service life on components (x hours running) so to have them turning while not required would shorten this. Much like leaving your car running 24-7 so it’s always warm when you get in it.
Edited by Speed addicted on Saturday 20th January 10:51
skeeterm5 said:
Last weekend we drove back from a short break in Cornwall, on the way back we passed a number of large wind turbines.
About half of them were static, switched off I suppose, even though there was a decent wind.
S
Why do they keep erecting ever more of those bloody things?About half of them were static, switched off I suppose, even though there was a decent wind.
S
It's already far too windy at times, surely we don't need more of them adding to it?
Perhaps they could use smaller ones carried on board sailing ships to power them on calm days?Edited by glenrobbo on Saturday 20th January 11:06
The Mad Monk said:
Boobonman said:
I’m sure trucks and buses smell different to new cars, which are different to old cars etc. Is it to do with a different burn of the fuel?
Different from. Different from.Similar to, different from.
Try to remember.
The Mad Monk said:
glazbagun said:
We could make an A320 a less miserable experience simply by deleting a third of the seats, but we wouldn't be prepared to pay the extra third on the ticket price.
It would 50% more, not a third.Edited by glazbagun on Friday 19th January 20:09
glazbagun said:
The Mad Monk said:
Boobonman said:
I’m sure trucks and buses smell different to new cars, which are different to old cars etc. Is it to do with a different burn of the fuel?
Different from. Different from.Similar to, different from.
Try to remember.
skeeterm5 said:
Last weekend we drove back from a short break in Cornwall, on the way back we passed a number of large wind turbines.
About half of them were static, switched off I suppose, even though there was a decent wind.
Why would you do that, why not simply leave them running pretty much all of the time and just store the energy?
S
They have to turn at a minimum speed to produce 50Hz AC electricity. And if they go too fast they risk damaging the system.About half of them were static, switched off I suppose, even though there was a decent wind.
Why would you do that, why not simply leave them running pretty much all of the time and just store the energy?
S
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff