HEMI's HOT

"Dave C." > wrote in message
...
| >
| > I rarely have the pedal to the floor in my car, even when towing a
| > trailer.
| > For the vast majority of onramps I can get up to the speed of traffic on
| > the
| > length of ramp given without having to go all out.
| >
| > That said it's nice to have the reserve power when I need it.
| >
| >
|
| Well said. But in the areas I drive, the entrance ramps are really short,
| and traffic in the "slow" lane is often 20 over the limit. Even WITH 200HP,
| you have to accelerate pretty damned hard to go from ~0-70 or so on the
| entrance ramps so that you can safely merge. Note that UNSAFELY merging
| doesn't require as heavy a foot on the accelerator. -Dave
|
|

Why would you be starting at 0 when on the on-ramp? Surely you enter the
acceleration lane already rolling along at at least 40+!

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 03:21:24 GMT, "Bill 2" > wrote:
|
| >That said it's nice to have the reserve power when I need it.
|
| What's funny is people who think that having good acceleration
| capability is "excessive" would not complain about having 4-wheel
| drilled rotor Brembo brakes with ABS - nothing wrong in their minds
| with being able to STOP quickly. It never occurs to them that braking
| is nothing more than ACCELERATION - the only difference is the vector
| points in the opposite direction. Some situations call for an
| acceleration vector that points forward; the ability to apply positive
| acceleration is every bit as important for safety as the ability to
| apply negative acceleration.
|
| --
| Sloth Kills!
| http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

In 30+ years of driving, I've only had one occasion where power saved me.
Which is far fewer times than when good brakes (without ABS) have come in
handy! :-) This was back in the early 1970's. I was stopping at a yellow
light when a dump truck behind me laid on his air horn. He wasn't
stopping...not sure why...but it didn't matter why. At the time I owned a 1967
GTO, so I lit up the rear tires and blew through the red light with the truck
close behind. A "average" car would never had been able to get out of the way
in time...I'm sure of that. So, yes, excessive reserve power *can* be a good
thing...but the occasion when it's really needed is extremely rare relative to
braking capacity (at least in my experience).

BTW, I *would* complain about ABS. I use controlled skidding for steering
control options in tight situations...a control maneuver option that ABS takes
away from the driver...at least this driver.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 03:21:24 GMT, "Bill 2" > wrote:
|
| >That said it's nice to have the reserve power when I need it.
|
| What's funny is people who think that having good acceleration
| capability is "excessive" would not complain about having 4-wheel
| drilled rotor Brembo brakes with ABS - nothing wrong in their minds
| with being able to STOP quickly. It never occurs to them that braking
| is nothing more than ACCELERATION - the only difference is the vector
| points in the opposite direction. Some situations call for an
| acceleration vector that points forward; the ability to apply positive
| acceleration is every bit as important for safety as the ability to
| apply negative acceleration.
|
| --
| Sloth Kills!
| http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

In 30+ years of driving, I've only had one occasion where power saved me.
Which is far fewer times than when good brakes (without ABS) have come in
handy! :-) This was back in the early 1970's. I was stopping at a yellow
light when a dump truck behind me laid on his air horn. He wasn't
stopping...not sure why...but it didn't matter why. At the time I owned a 1967
GTO, so I lit up the rear tires and blew through the red light with the truck
close behind. A "average" car would never had been able to get out of the way
in time...I'm sure of that. So, yes, excessive reserve power *can* be a good
thing...but the occasion when it's really needed is extremely rare relative to
braking capacity (at least in my experience).

BTW, I *would* complain about ABS. I use controlled skidding for steering
control options in tight situations...a control maneuver option that ABS takes
away from the driver...at least this driver.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
news | On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:30:06 -0500, "James C. Reeves"
| > wrote:
|
| >Yes...words that come to mind. Excessive. Overkill. Unnecessary.
| >Ridiculous. But, apparently people want the power (or think they do), even
| >though it can rarely be used
|
| Spoken like a true Sloth.
|
| No doubt you're the guy I see puttering up the freeway on-ramp at 35
| MPH because his car does 0-60 in 6 months.
|
| --
| Sloth Kills!
| http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

You'd be wrong. I enter the freeway at at least the posted limits...usually 65
around here. Although I realize that I would still be a sloth from your
perspective though. :-) You'll be glad to know I'm rarely in the left
lane...too much crazy stuff going on over there by truly crazy people! People
doing 90 thinking that the ones doing 80 are "sloth's". The ones doing 100
thinking that the ones doing 90 are "sloth's". It should be called the
"no-rules" lane over there in the left, frankly.

BTW: I wonder how people have been driving 80-100 for so many years without
these 425HP engines then! ;-)

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
news | On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:30:06 -0500, "James C. Reeves"
| > wrote:
|
| >Yes...words that come to mind. Excessive. Overkill. Unnecessary.
| >Ridiculous. But, apparently people want the power (or think they do), even
| >though it can rarely be used
|
| Spoken like a true Sloth.
|
| No doubt you're the guy I see puttering up the freeway on-ramp at 35
| MPH because his car does 0-60 in 6 months.
|
| --
| Sloth Kills!
| http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

You'd be wrong. I enter the freeway at at least the posted limits...usually 65
around here. Although I realize that I would still be a sloth from your
perspective though. :-) You'll be glad to know I'm rarely in the left
lane...too much crazy stuff going on over there by truly crazy people! People
doing 90 thinking that the ones doing 80 are "sloth's". The ones doing 100
thinking that the ones doing 90 are "sloth's". It should be called the
"no-rules" lane over there in the left, frankly.

BTW: I wonder how people have been driving 80-100 for so many years without
these 425HP engines then! ;-)

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

> Why would you be starting at 0 when on the on-ramp?

....because it's one of the increasing numbers of freeway onramps that have
a traffic light? Y'know, "ONE CAR PER LANE PER GREEN LIGHT CYCLE"? These
controls are said to improve traffic flow, but most of the onramps they're
on were not originally designed for any such an arrangement, so RAPID
acceleration is frequently necessary.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

> Why would you be starting at 0 when on the on-ramp?

....because it's one of the increasing numbers of freeway onramps that have
a traffic light? Y'know, "ONE CAR PER LANE PER GREEN LIGHT CYCLE"? These
controls are said to improve traffic flow, but most of the onramps they're
on were not originally designed for any such an arrangement, so RAPID
acceleration is frequently necessary.

> |
> | Well said. But in the areas I drive, the entrance ramps are really
> short,
> | and traffic in the "slow" lane is often 20 over the limit. Even WITH
> 200HP,
> | you have to accelerate pretty damned hard to go from ~0-70 or so on the
> | entrance ramps so that you can safely merge. Note that UNSAFELY merging
> | doesn't require as heavy a foot on the accelerator. -Dave
> |
> |
>
> Why would you be starting at 0 when on the on-ramp? Surely you enter the
> acceleration lane already rolling along at at least 40+!
>
>

If the on-ramp is correctly engineered, you probably can hit it at 40+. Try
driving in New England a while, though. Poorly engineered on-ramps are the
NORM. Now throw in the all-too-common STOP signs near the end of poorly
engineered on-ramps and suddenly 0-80MPH acceleration ASAP is necessary to
safely merge onto the highway. -Dave

> |
> | Well said. But in the areas I drive, the entrance ramps are really
> short,
> | and traffic in the "slow" lane is often 20 over the limit. Even WITH
> 200HP,
> | you have to accelerate pretty damned hard to go from ~0-70 or so on the
> | entrance ramps so that you can safely merge. Note that UNSAFELY merging
> | doesn't require as heavy a foot on the accelerator. -Dave
> |
> |
>
> Why would you be starting at 0 when on the on-ramp? Surely you enter the
> acceleration lane already rolling along at at least 40+!
>
>

If the on-ramp is correctly engineered, you probably can hit it at 40+. Try
driving in New England a while, though. Poorly engineered on-ramps are the
NORM. Now throw in the all-too-common STOP signs near the end of poorly
engineered on-ramps and suddenly 0-80MPH acceleration ASAP is necessary to
safely merge onto the highway. -Dave

"Dave C." > wrote in message
...
|
| > |
| > | Well said. But in the areas I drive, the entrance ramps are really
| > short,
| > | and traffic in the "slow" lane is often 20 over the limit. Even WITH
| > 200HP,
| > | you have to accelerate pretty damned hard to go from ~0-70 or so on the
| > | entrance ramps so that you can safely merge. Note that UNSAFELY merging
| > | doesn't require as heavy a foot on the accelerator. -Dave
| > |
| > |
| >
| > Why would you be starting at 0 when on the on-ramp? Surely you enter the
| > acceleration lane already rolling along at at least 40+!
| >
| >
|
| If the on-ramp is correctly engineered, you probably can hit it at 40+. Try
| driving in New England a while, though. Poorly engineered on-ramps are the
| NORM. Now throw in the all-too-common STOP signs near the end of poorly
| engineered on-ramps and suddenly 0-80MPH acceleration ASAP is necessary to
| safely merge onto the highway. -Dave
|
|

How was it done back in the 80's when a average car didn't even have 100HP?